1. What machines is it available for?
The game was first released on the Amiga and ST with the PC version
following around a year later. The Amiga and ST versions can both be run
of disk and do not need hard drive installation.
GB: As far as I know there are two version of the game for the PC, F1GP
on floppies, which is supplied on 4 high density disks with optional
upgrade disks, and F1GP on CD, which is EXACTLY the same game but on a
silver disk. Do not buy this unless you don't have a floppy drive, since
it costs more and has NO extra features. Quite what MicroProse is
playing at is unknown, but the CD version represents BAD value for your
money.
The game is now reissued by Digital Integration on the PowerPlus budget
label.
DG: Having played both the Amiga and PC versions, I noticed some
important differences. First, some of the tracks are physically
different, Monaco and Imola at least. Second, perhaps because of the low
frame rate or different control routines, the car is much, much harder
to set up on the Amiga than the PC; it's very hard to feel whether the
car has any under- or oversteer. It's also much harder to time the turn-
in points properly, as Ivanhoe's explanation of frame rates above
predicts.
2. What sort of performance can I expect on my PC?
Here is a rough table of machine against performance:
Machine Memory Detail Process Speed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P90 8mb 4d T 35% 25fps (DG's tower of power w/ PCI K64)
486dx266 8mb 4d T 70% 25fps
486dx266 4mb 4d T 60% 25fps
486dx266 32mb 4d T 53% 25fps (Pete F's Dan4Win w/ Spea V7 VLB)
486dx266 16mb 4d NT 35% 25fps (Nigel Bovey's)
486dx266 ? 4d T 70% 25fps (MBP's under OS/2)
486dx33 ? 4d T 90% 25fps (Graham A's)
486sx33 4mb 4d NT 66% 25fps
486dx250 24mb 4d NT 95% 25fps (Paul Smyth's w/ ISA ET4000-W32)
486sx25 4mb 4d NT 100% 25fps (a DELL)
486sx25 ? 4d NT 80% 25fps (Nightshade's oldie)
486sx25 4mb 4d NT 100% 23fps (Ben Lester's)
486sx25 2mb 4d NT 100% 21fps
386dx40 4mb 4d NT 100% 20fps
386dx40 2mb 4d NT 100% 20fps (possibly optimistic)
486dx250 24mb 4d NT 100% 18fps (Paul Smyth's w/ ISA S3-924)
386dx33 8mb 4d NT 100% 17fps (DG's old faithful w/ T8900CL)
386sx20 2mb 1d NT 100% 15fps (Max Behara's)
386sx25 2mb 4d NT 100% 14fps (Stingray's)
386sx20 2mb 4d NT 100% 8fps (Max Behara's)
It appears that as long as you have at least 2mb of RAM, the actual
amount makes absolutely no difference. The difference between the two
DX2/66s above is attributable to graphics card alone; see the difference
between Paul Smyth's machine with two difference graphics cards
installed. DG: IMHO if you have a 486SX/25 or better with a VLB or PCI
graphics card you should be able to crank the frame rate right up
without texture; a 486DX2/50 or better will add texture without any
penalty.
The details level is shown by the amount of detail around the track, 1d
being the lowest level and 4d the highest, the other detail option is
the track shading, this is shown by T (track shading on), NT (no track
shading). The process column show the average processor occupancy as you
go around any track. This is just a rough estimate, but really shouldn't
go above 100% very much. The final column show the speed in frames per
pecond that this set-up allows.
Even on similar machines, several things will affect speed. A machine
with some external cache will outperform one without; the actual amount
of cache is probably not going to make much difference. Graphics card
performance also makes a big difference; a local bus card will run much
faster that an ISA card, and some cards have better DOS performance than
others (Cirrus Logic based cards are good, ET4000 and derivatives are
even better).
The general consensus seem to be that people would rather have it
running smoother, but with less detail, this shows one of the main
advantages of F1GP over IndyCar, in that it runs quickly on a slow
machine and smooth graphics are possible quite easily.
The Amiga version runs at a similar speed regardless of the machine's
capacity, about 3-5 fps, depending on circuit, even in the fastest 68060
system.
Does the performance vary on an ST? Mail me if it does.
2.1 So how does this affect lap times?
Short answer: it doesn't.
Long answer: it doesn't... directly. DG is in the fortunate position of
having both a P90 and a 386DX/33 on his desk (well, okay, the 386 is
under the desk...), and loaded identical copies of the game up on both
machines. The first and most obvious difference was that the game does
not do a good job of matching "real time" (measured on a stopwatch
during laps on qualifying tyres at Monaco). The first tests were done on
the 386. With 100% to 130% occupancy, the game's timer runs slow, being
about three seconds behind reality. With all the detail turned off and
the occupancy down to about 70% to 110%, it was about three seconds
ahead of reality. With the frame rate reduced and occupancy between 45%
and 75%, it was about 4 seconds behind. Then testing moved to the P90.
With maximum detail and about 33% to 44% occupancy, the timer was about
4 seconds fast.
Now, here's the crunch. Despite these differences, the lap times
reported by the game were very close, all in the 1:14.4 range. The game
was noticeably easier to play at higher frame rates and lower
occupancies. However, with very high occupancies (more than 200%, such
as on the 386 with texture turned on), the difference from real time
becomes very noticeable; the whole game runs in slow motion, and is
potentially easier to play as you get much longer to react. Ivanhoe
Vasiljevich came up with the superb (and very lightly edited)
explanation below.
[...] a high frame rate [as opposed to occupancy] may have its
advantages (my opinion, not proven!):
Using a frame rate of 25 fps means that you have 25
possibilities to perform an action (eg. braking, accelerating)
every second, whereas driving with 16 fps only allows you 16
`slots' per second, to brake, for example.
Assuming that a typical braking maneuver begins at 300 km/h
(188 mph), this equals a speed of 83 m/s, so that at 25 fps
you can take action (brake) every 3.3 m as opposed to every
5.2 m when using 16 fps. (Using an even lower frame rate
naturally worsens the situation. At 8 fps the distance between
two points of action is 10.3 m!) During a normal lap including
many braking maneuvers, this may affect the overall
performance, not to mention techniques like pulsing the
throttle.
In my opinion it would be best to turn off as much detail as
necessary and increase the frame rate as high as possible. (It
may not look as cool, but honestly, who has got the time to
enjoy the beautiful panorama when chasing a new lap record?)
3. Why does the installation fail on the PC?
When installing the game unpacks some large files. On a fragmented hard
disk there might not be a large enough free block for them and the
Installation will crash with a very unhelpful message. Just run a
defragmenter on the hard drive, such as Norton Speed Disk or the one
supplied with MS-DOS 6, the game should then install no problem.
Another potential problem pointed out to me is that the game copies all
the Data files onto hard disk before decompressing them, and this
effectively doubles the amount of space it uses at installation time, so
make sure you have plenty of free hard disk space, as this will cure
both this problem and the one above.
4. Why does the fade between screens take so long?
We don't know, but it's awful isn't it? DG: On the Amiga I believe there
is a patch to help cure this; on the PC I run from a Windows DOS box
with the Exclusive option selected, which for some reason speeds it up.
I think it must have something to do with timer emulation because under
Windows NT I have Hardware Timer Emulation turned on and it fades slowly
again. Version 1.03 and earlier on the PC seem to use a different fading
technique to later versions which is faster on faster machines.
5. Why does the game sometimes slow down?
The graphics for generating the pit-lane are quit complex and so your
occupancy will always rise when in the pits, though this isn't usually
too much of a problem. The only other place where the game seems to slow
is the back straight at Phoenix and the second straight at Hockenheim.
The slow down at Phoenix is probably due to the large buildings it has
to draw, the one at Hockenheim because of the number of trees. Turn down
the detail if you notice a slowdown and don't like it.
6. What is the best controller method?
On the Amiga, keyboard or digital joystick seems best.
On the PC, keyboard seems to be preferred by many of the top drivers,
with analog joystick coming a close second. DG: The professional wheel
systems (such as the T1 or ACP) don't seem to work wonderfully. I've had
a few success stories but many people go back to the keyboard!
Javier Vizcaino provided the following information about using radio
control units with the game.
It is [...] possible to change a transmitter used in radio
control (R/C) to turn it into a PC joystick, and play F1GP.
I've modified a few, and let me tell you that there is nothing
similar to drive with these devices.
He also provides some information about PC game ports which help a few
folks out. Note that if you're going to play games on a PC with a
joystick, you really should invest in either a decent soundcard with
credible joystick ports [DG: my Gravis UltraSound is pretty good, and my
SoundBlaster 16 also seems reliable a drift-free] or a dedicated game
card.
About the game port, this is what happens. Game ports on the
PC can be full (the initial good ones with a 558, still found
on SB cards at least, four pots and four buttons), or half
(cheaper chinese solution, two pots and two buttons, simple
joysticks). F1GP goes well on a half port. The problem is that
there are a lot of multi I/O boards with Winbond chips
including a half game port which presents the missing buttons
pressed. When F1GP starts calibrating the joystick, it stops
till seeing the four buttons released (it can't know if your
game port is full or half); with the above board, calibration
doesn't start, and you have to abort it with the ESC key. So
if calibrating the joystick the game seems to freeze till you
press ESC, may be you have this problem. Check with DEBUG:
i201; if you see bits 7-6 at 0, the game port presents the
third and fourth buttons pressed.
7. What is the sound like on a SoundBlaster etc?
Not all that much better unfortunately if anything the PC speaker is
more irritating and thus more realistic! The Amiga sound is reported to
be quite good with a good use of stereo, and the ST is as bad as the PC!
The SoundBlaster support was improved considerably in versions later
than 1.01, but is still quite poor.
DG: The Amiga sounds good even through a TV. The PC with 1.05 and a
SoundBlaster is okay if you turn it up real loud, but not a patch on the
Amiga. A PC with MT-32 or other MIDI is pathetic, but the music is
better. *sigh* I don't know about the ST, but I'd guess it's better than
a PC speaker and nowhere near as good as the Amiga.
8. How do I make the (PC) game more challenging?
Aside from using the editor to speed up the opposition, the easiest ways
to make the game more difficult are to turn of Traction and Steering
Help, both of these options are listed off the Games Control menu, in
the Accelerating and Steering menus respectively. With these off the
game becomes a good deal harder, but it still leaves a lot to be
desired.
Several top Hall Of Fame drivers report that driving with Traction Help
off, whilst harder, also improves lap times at many circuits, primarily
those with many slow corners.
9. I am bored with the game, what now?
Well it has to happen eventually, so what now? You could join one of the
championships on the Net and learn to really hate the game or try either
of these two very sad games...
9.1 Dodgems
The basic idea behind this one is to make your car indestructible and
then wipe out the opposition as fast as possible. Top tip, go backwards
quickly. This is fun for about 30 minutes whilst you do each of the
tracks and marvel at the difference of the courses when viewed from the
other direction.
9.2 Jumping
A particularly rubbish game this, but set your cars up for no down-force
and then drive over the rumble strip and become air borne and see how
far you can get. Remember to save the games as you land so you can show
off to your friends and family...
DG: I've been sent a superb replay of someone calling himself
BeetleHarry jumping right over a car at the first chicane at Hockenhiem.
I'll put it up for FTP soon. If you have any more good crashes or
stunts, send them in!
10. Is there a difference in car performance?
With the performance set to Random or 1991 Levels the cars do vary in
speed, except for the car you are driving. For this reason there is no
point in choosing car No 1, just because it should be 10% faster like
real life since the performance of human cars is always the same, modulo
the BHP degredation mentioned previously.
11. Why is the AI (artificial intelligence) so rubbish?
Who knows, but it reeks doesn't it? There seems to be no real way to
cope with this, except to learn what the other cars do, and avoid any of
there stupid overtaking maneuvers. This is the main area that the game
falls down in, since everything else has been really well written.
One of the areas in which to pay most attention is the pit lane, since
the computer cars will quite happily pull out in front of you as you do
150 mph down the lane and so cause a collision. Conversely, watch your
mirrors as you pull out since they appear quite quickly if you are in
the last pit.
On the track, they basically follow the ideal line unless slipstreaming.
If you can get your front wheels ahead of theirs they do move over so
perfect your drafting technique!
12. Why aren't there extension disks?
At the moment there are no extension disks available and none are likely
to become available, this is not through any fault of MicroProse, but
due to the strict licensing agreements with FIA, who are in charge of
the licensing of Grand Prix related material. MicroProse only bought the
rights to the 1991 season so that tracks will have to stay at that
level.
13. Who are the drivers meant to be, and why aren't they?
The game comes supplied with a set of names which bear almost no
relation to the actual drivers names. This is because the drivers would
probably want to be paid for there names, so MicroProse took the cheaper
and more sensible option. The names that are supplied are meant to sound
like names from the same country as the real driver, hence Carlos
Sanchez instead of Ayrton Senna. The correct list of names can be found
at the end of the supplement to the game, and the names for 1993/94 can
be found on the Rec.Autos.Sport.F1 newsgroup.
14. Circuits
14.1 Which circuit does it default to around the world?
Well, on the European version it selects Silverstone as the default GP
if English language is chosen, Magny Cours if French is the language,
and if the language is German it chooses Hockenheim, so it looks like it
depends on what country you live in! Hence World Circuit uses Phoenix
and the Italian version chooses Monza.
14.2 What are the best circuits?
This is a scored listing of the tracks as posted by readers of the
amigaf1gp mailing list and rec.autos.simulators. This vote is now
closed; Monte Carlo is the clear winner, not a great surprise!
Race Qualifying Total
1 Monte Carlo 41 1 Monte Carlo 40 1 Monte Carlo 81
2 Magny Cours 34 2 Mexico City 36 2 Mexico City 68
3 Spa 33 3 Hockenhiem 35 3 Imola 64
4 Imola 32 4 Adelaide 34 4 Hockenhiem 51
==Mexico City 32 5 Imola 32 ==Magny Cours 51
6 Monza 31 6 Silverstone 23 6 Spa 50
7 Interlagos 20 7 Suzuka 20 7 Monza 49
8 Suzuka 19 8 Monza 18 8 Adelaide 47
9 Hockenhiem 16 9 Spa 17 9 Suzuka 39
10 Adelaide 13 ==Magny Cours 17 10 Silverstone 35
11 Silverstone 12 11 Montreal 12 11 Interlagos 21
12 Phoenix 10 12 Estoril 7 ==Montreal 21
13 Montreal 9 13 Phoenix 5 13 Phoenix 15
14 Barcelona 3 14 Hungaroring 3 14 Estoril 7
15 Estoril 0 15 Interlagos 1 15 Barcelona 3
==Hungaroring 0 16 Barcelona 0 ==Hungaroring 3
Scoring: the top four tracks score 5, 4, 3, 1 points, with the most
hated getting a 1 point penalty.
14.3 Is there a track editor?
No, nor is there ever likely to be one. DG: I did hear rumors that
someone had turned Mexico into an oval, but don't have any more details.
15. I'm in love with the author, who is he?
The author of the game is Geoff Crammond, he has been responsible for
most of the innovative games to appear in the auto simulation world, he
previously wrote the original version of Revs for the BBC Micro. It was
based on Formula 3 racing at Silverstone (the old circuit without the
Vale complex and with the chicane at Woodcote) and was developed with
help from David Hunt (James Hunt's brother), who was racing in British
F3 at the time. The track was quite accurately reproduced and the game
played quite quickly. The game had practice, qualifying and race
sessions like F1GP, but it didn't have pits and you started your
practice and qualifying sessions out on the track! There was also an
expansion pack released which contained four other British tracks,
Oulton Park, Snetterton, Donington Park, and Brands Hatch. Revs was also
released on the Commodore 64.
He then wrote Stunt Car Racer for the Amiga/ST (and the PC, although the
conversion is reported to be poor: 4 color EGA only; the port was
apparantly not done by Crammond) which was as it's name suggests was a
stunt car racing game. The main aim of the game was to race another
stunt car around an elevated circuit, trying not to fall off. Getting in
your way were large gaps in the circuit which had to be jumped by
hitting a ramp at the right speed. Too slow and you went down the hole,
too fast and you cracked the chassis. When the chassis was fully
cracked, your race was over. The best part about this game was the two
player serial option which allowed you to push your mates off the track.
The rest of the programming team seems to be members of his close
family! The only other name that jumps out is that of Pete Cook who
wrote some of the best games on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. Interestingly
he was involved with the game Grand Prix from CRL, which attempted to
simulate the management of a GP team. It was very simple but great fun.
Outside of auto racing games, Crammond also made an excellent 3D game
called The Sentinel, for Spectrum, C64, Amiga, Atari, etc, and it was a
very nice idea. You were in a landscape, absorbing some objects,
teleporting from one place to the other, always trying to be out of
sight of a sentinel that was guarding the landscape. The goal was to
have enough energy to climb higher then the sentinel (you were able to
build little platforms) and absorb him and take his place. There were
people who didn't like the game, but those who liked it were addicted to
it. It would be nice to see the game in Virtual Reality, it would be
easy to write.
16. What do the real drivers think?
There have been two drivers who have commented on the game, they are
Oliver Gavin, and Derek Warwick. Gavin is a top F3 driver who, according
to MicroProse, played the game on a friends Amiga before the race at
Spa, and the went on to win it!
"Because part of the circuit is on the public road, Oliver
couldn't practice on the circuit", explains Geoff, "so he used
F1GP to learn the track, took pole position and won the race."
Derek Warwick on the other hand drove for the F1 team Arrows/Footwork
(who helped write the game!) and gave it a glowing write up in Autosport
Magazine, just before the Canadian GP (the 10 June 1993 issue). There
was also an interview with the Footwork engineers. He gave some lap
times but they were very poor, and he had to drive with full help. This
provoked a spate of letters to the magazine from people asking for his
job, including the following, from the 17 June 1993 issue:
GIZAJOB
I read last week's Canadian Grand Prix preview - about
Footwork Formula 1's computer game - with interest.
I have been playing the game for several months now and was
delighted to read how accurate it is. Allen McDonald claimed
he could lap Montreal in 1m19s. Well I can lap in 1m17.627s so
does this mean I can take Derek Warwick's place if ever he
feels like having the weekend off.
J Mosley
Sheffield, Yorkshire
Also, a Canadian driver contacted him to say how accurate the Montreal
course was.
17. What the difference between WC and F1GP?
There seems to be no difference apart from the name, with the version
numbers staying consistent with each other. The only difference is the
loading screens (see separate question).
17.1 What are the WC gif files?
These files are used in the US version of GP, known as World Circuit.
18. Why do I not seem to be able to go so quick some days?
The game randomly degrades the player's car's horsepower from its
default of 716BHP, presumably to simulate changing track conditions. The
latest GPLap (version 5.0) fixes this.
19. Why does the car steer itself sometimes?
This effect is most noticeable in the pits, when the car is pulled into
the correct lane as you drive past, though the computer 'aids' you
steering as you go round every course. The reason for this is the
Steering Help option set in the Game Controls, Steering, menu. This
feature is there to help users who driver using the keyboard or a
standard joystick, since they find it hard to make slight course
adjustments. The only way to disable this feature in a race is to put
the car in the 'turning gear' you can then steer the car anywhere you
want in the pits etc, thought quite why you would want to...
20. How are the pit bays allocated?
This is more of a general GP question than specific to the game, but the
pits are given out according to the team's position in the previous
years constructors championship. There seems to be a bit of a bug in the
game when you drive for the top team, in that at some courses it is very
hard to get into the pit bay correctly! The corner is too sharp and with
the steering help on, you almost always over shoot. DG: Can't say as
I've noticed this, but then again I slow down on the pit lane like
you're supposed too.
One correspondant reports that he is working on a patch to alter the pit-
bay allocation.
21. What happens if I overshoot my pit?
To put it simply, you cannot over shoot your pit (unless steering help
is turned off) the computer will always try and pull you in. This means
that you can be parked at very strange angles, but this does not seem to
hurt your stop time, though the get-away may become more difficult! (Of
course, some people would consider this cheating!)
22. Linked play
22.1 Why doesn't the modem play work?
If you own the Amiga or Atari ST version then you are out of luck since
the modem support never appeared on either of these versions, the PC
game is the only version with the support.
There is no modem support on the first version (1.01) but this was added
on the updates 1.04 and 1.05, the link option needs two quite fast
machine to work well, on 386SX it is almost unplayable, and the slowest
machine dictates the speed of the other machines; on a 386DX you'll
probably need a 16550 UART to get acceptable performance. If the game
seems to pause a lot or you get regular (but not constant) link data
mismatches, try reducing the frame rate on the slower machine by 30% or
more.
22.2 What are these modem menus?
On the PC, if you hex edit the .EXE file from version 1.00 you will find
some references to modems and COM links, these menus are not enabled and
you will have to upgrade to access the link option.
22.3 Can I play across a real network?
No. Neither IPX nor TCP/IP are supported; only the COM ports may be
used.
If you have a dialup connection to the Internet, you may be able to use
the Internet Head-to-Head Daemon (IHHD) to play with someone on the net.
Perhaps a reader could supply a pointer to more information.
In theory, one could use a null-modem cable to loop the COM ports on two
machines together, and write a TSR which would transfer bytes between
the network card and the COM port which isn't selected in the game. So
far, nobody has reported trying this.
22.4 Is there any way to connect two computers other than null modem
cable?
Javier Vizcaino suggested the following alternative method of
connection,
You can play F1GP (and other games) through a direct connection,
informing the game you are connected "Direct", and having a modem at
each end. You establish the connection through a communication package,
or from the DOS prompt, before entering the game. The link is done from
modem to modem, through a direct telephone cable, with RJ-11 connectors
at each end. This has some advantages:
* Easier cable than a null modem. You can have it built at a
telephone shop. It can also be much longer than an RS232 cable.
* No galvanic isolation to care about.
* You can play with your neighbour, and talk with him at the time
through the phone.
* With external modems, you can observe F1GP exchanging packets.
* Some computer/modem fun, without paying the phone call.
Of couse, there are some disadvantages:
* A modem is needed at each end. But if you already have the
modems...
* A more complex connection (probably some debugging/experimenting
needed).
Procedure:
* Have the modems (2400+) connected at each end to COM1-COM4. If you
use COM3-COM4 make sure you use IRQ4-IRQ3: F1GP doesn't recognize other
hardware interrupts there.
* Establish the connection: modems on leased line (we won't dial),
with one modem calling and the other answering. This may be done:
* With a communication program: set the port, set the baud rate,
connect to the modem, inform leased line, make one answer and the
other
call. Exit the program maintaining the connection.
* From the DOS prompt. Edit a batch program at each site:
* Calling modem:
mode com1:96,n,8,1
echo at&l1d>com1
* Answering modem:
mode com1:96,n,8,1
echo at&l1a>com1
(Check if this is correct: I write without the DOS
manual). Execute the programs and listen to the modems.
Adapt the batch to your requirements and to your modems.
Disable MNP/V42/V42bis (error correction/compression).
* Enter F1GP and make the program believe you have a "Direct"
connection. Of course, inform of the same COM ports and baud rate than
before. Note that you can change the PC initiating the connection,
since
the link was done previously. Connect on both sides. F1GP should
exchange packets and establish the connection.
DG: if you try this, pass your experiences on to mailto:jvizcain Javier
Vizcaino.
23. F1GP version 2?
23.1 The rumors
MicroProse UK are keeping very quiet about it. Geoff Crammond and the
other developers are being left alone to finish it; MicroProse UK (who
are online at mailto:71333....@compuserve.com care of Mark Rich) say
they don't know exactly what state it's in, what it's contents will be,
or even it's title! They do however expect it in the second half of this
year. A recent news item in PC Zone magazine inidcated that MicroProse
were expecting it late in the 3rd quarter of 1995, with a Super Bike
game to follow using the same basic game engine at the end of 1995.
23.2 Wish list
Here is the current wish list compiled from suggestions make by people
on the net. DG: These suggestions have been passed on to MicroProse UK;
if you have any more, mail me to add them to the list. Some of these are
kind of far out! I've seperated them into "must"s, "maybe"s, and "it's a
nice idea"s.
Musts:
* Better AI. At higher levels they should more aggressivly look to
outbrake and slipstream human players, and slower drivers (being lapped
for example) should make room. They should raise an arm or something
when pitting to avoid being hit (or, better still, sort out the pit
entrances so they don't slow down right o