Nascar 4 and Nascar 2002 since you seem to be intimately familiar
with the graphics engine? Otherwise, what are you basing your
information on? It seems odd to me that I'm getting the same
framerate
as N4 in OpenGL using uncompressed 512x512 textures with more physics,
AI, and graphical effects detail. While I can't make claims to the
efficiency of the engine, I would guess that they've tidied it up a
bit if they were able to add more polygons to the car models (and more
detailed vertex damage), 512x512 textures, and backfire effects
without sacrificing framerate. I have a 1.4gHz Athlon Thunderbird and
a geforce 3 ti200 and I can easily maintain 25-35fps depending on the
track with a full field of AI and full graphical details sans
antistropic filtering at 1280x960x32. Hardly a top-of-the-line system
by *** standards, I'm sure with even a Ge3 ti500 I could maintain
50fps (or 30 with antistropic filtering). I absolutely fear the
performance I'll be getting when I pickup a Ge4 Ti in May...
Jason
> But its not a more efficient graphic engine, just larger more detailed textures.
> --
> Biz
> "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
> alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and
> the....." - Ash
> > > Provided everything else is about the same, wouldn't you expect a slightly
> lower fps with a more
> > > detailed gfx game?
> > Not necessarily. A more efficient graphics engine can make a big difference
> > to frame rate, more detailed or not.