rec.autos.simulators

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

Olivier Crott

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Olivier Crott » Sat, 20 Jul 1996 04:00:00



>There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2
>when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in
>VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other
>than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very
>smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in
>full detail in vga ona a p166?

First I think the mathematical model used in Quake is not the same
that in GP2... :)
More seriously, I tried the game on a computer in my office (P133) and
it's very smooth in VGA with full details. I did not tried SVGA (I am
afraid it requires 16M (not sure) while this comp. has 8) but it
should be smooth with some textures turned off.

Olivier

Adrian Vesnav

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Adrian Vesnav » Sat, 20 Jul 1996 04:00:00

There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2
when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in
VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other
than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very
smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in
full detail in vga ona a p166?

Adrian

--


   \_,-*_/   Australia          PGP Key:    finger me or see my home page
        v        

         GUS Page:   http://www.student.adelaide.edu.au/~godfathr/gus/

Jason Smit

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Jason Smit » Mon, 22 Jul 1996 04:00:00





> >spoke the following words of wisdom...

> >>During this weekend I tried to overclock my machine to 166 MHZ (cbench
> >>went from 181 to 200) but I had to give up because some apps exited
> >>with GPF faults (Windoze) but GP2 worked flawlessly (sp?). I noticed

> >Same here - P133 o/c to 180MHz, GP2 runs fine (nice and quick), Windows
> >curls up its toes and dies, spluttering GPFs as it coughs it's last
> >breath. The choice now is - go back to 133MHz and put up with poorer GP2
> >frame rates, or stay at 180MHz and never work again. Gee, let me
> >think...

> >regards,

> >Paul

>***********************************************************************
> >*             Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian             *

> >*    "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..."    *

>***********************************************************************

> You may be able to wire up the turbo switch to switch between 133MHz and
> 180MHz if the change only requires a jumper on/off, or maybe a
> combination of turbo switch and keylock?

> --
> Mark Dyball

I've have the same trouble over clocking my cyrix 120 to 133 it works
perfect in dos but win95 crashes because it is shit?.  Anyway I'm
getting a mere.  13 fps with every detail and texture on in SVGA.
textures in the mirrors to!. But 25f+ in svga with most of the textures
off.  The pro is on doing 60-70% but I need to have it like that so my
hotlaps go full speed.
Jason.
Roberto Zi

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Roberto Zi » Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:00:00



Hi Adrian !

Well, I played GP2 during this weekend on my machine (P150+16MB RAM
+ ET4000 PCI 2MB) and I have to say I had to lower some details to
get a good frame rate. In SVGA mode, I had to exclude sky textures,
track textures (I never liked 'em even in VGA), grass & sand trap
textures and I had to reduce the track details (buildings, objects,
stands and so on) down to 1 or 2 (there are 4 levels available) to
get a good (at least for me) frame rate. This however depends on the
track you're racing on; as an example, Monaco is AWESOME (again) but
it's a CPU killer. If you want to race on it you have to reduce
external details to minimum or race it in VGA mode which, after all,
is not that bad. You can however use the 'O' key to get the
processor occupancy depicted on the screen (and I think this
feature will be referred very often in this newsgroup).

During this weekend I tried to overclock my machine to 166 MHZ (cbench
went from 181 to 200) but I had to give up because some apps exited
with GPF faults (Windoze) but GP2 worked flawlessly (sp?). I noticed
an improvement in frame rate (I was able to rise the detail level)
but replays (as an example) raised P.O (proc. occupancy) even to
200/300% especially when there were a lot of machines on the track.

I think that (currently) even a P200 is unable to get this game
running at >20fps in SVGA with all the details turned on.

I think that MPS did a great mistake by not making use of VESA 2.0
extensions (like the ones provided by UNIVBE o SDD52) because this
feature could be very useful since GP2 is a 32 bit MS-DOS app which makes
use of the so called 32bit MS-DOS extenders widely used by programs
like Quake, DN3D and ICR2. I noticed a sensible improvement when I
run Quake (shareware) with SDD52 and a friend of mine reported that
he's got good results with ICR2 and DN3D.

Perhaps we'll have to wait for a DirectX Win95 version or for a
specific version engineered for 3D gfx cards support.

Best,
Roberto
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Strhold Sistemi EDP
Reggio Emilia      ITALY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Acca', nisciuno e' fess !
                              (TOM - the red cat, Silvester's friend)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Kyle Steve

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Kyle Steve » Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:00:00

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:17:18 +0200, Lars Birkemose



>> There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2
>> when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in
>> VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other
>> than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very
>> smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in
>> full detail in vga ona a p166?

>First of all, because GP2 has to calculate an enormous amount of data compared to Quake.
>You have 26 cars running, all physics must be calculated, the bouncing around act.
>Furthermore the graphics contain much more details and calculating than ex. Quake.
>Quake has some 3D calculations, and a lot of texture, GP2 has A LOT of 3D calculations and
>A LOT of texture.
>It is much more simple to calculate a lot of plain surfaces, than a lot of small details,
>some hidden behind others.
>My first impression was "to slow", but I must admit, the amount of data being
>calculated and moved is impressive..

>LB

No way!!! Someone compared GP2 to Quake?  Apples and oranges, my
friends!  That's amazing.  Hey, wait, a Quake engine for GP2?
Hmm.....

Kyle

Lars Birkemos

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Lars Birkemos » Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:00:00


> There has been a lot of talk in this group about the poor performance of GP2
> when there are a lot of graphics on screen. Is does this slow down occur in
> VGA as well as SVGA? I can't see why this should occur for any reason other
> than poor programming. I've seen Quake running full screen at 640x480 very
> smoothly without slowdown on a p166, so why can't gp2 run very smoothly in
> full detail in vga ona a p166?

First of all, because GP2 has to calculate an enormous amount of data compared to Quake.
You have 26 cars running, all physics must be calculated, the bouncing around act.
Furthermore the graphics contain much more details and calculating than ex. Quake.
Quake has some 3D calculations, and a lot of texture, GP2 has A LOT of 3D calculations and
A LOT of texture.
It is much more simple to calculate a lot of plain surfaces, than a lot of small details,
some hidden behind others.
My first impression was "to slow", but I must admit, the amount of data being
calculated and moved is impressive..

LB

John Wallac

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by John Wallac » Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:00:00


writes

I find GP2 even slows down on a P-Pro 200 (Natoma/Fastvid/etc). It is
still incapable of maintaining 25fps starting from 26th at Monaco, and
until we have a PC that can do that without slowdown we can't say there
is a PC to "properly" run GP2.

One thing they really missed out was the implementation of VESA2
support, and allowing us to run oddball graphics modes like 360x400 and
things like that. It may be due to the way objects are scaled in Duke
and Quake which allows that, but Quake is prerendered and allows this,
so it would be good to have the option if it was possible. 360x400 is
noticably quicker than 640x480, and with little discernable loss in
image quality.

It would also allow us to play in 1024x768 in a few years.... :)

Cheers!
John

                     _________________________________
         __    _____|                                 |_____    __
________|  |__|    :|           John Wallace          |     |__|  |________

  \    :|  |::|    :|        Team WW Racing TSW       |     |::|  |     /
    >  :|  |::|    :|_________________________________|     |::|  |   <
  /    :|__|::|____/       * Sim Racing News *         \____|::|__|     \
/______:/  \::/ http://sneezy.dcn.ed.ac.uk/simnews/index.htm \::/  \._____\
               http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~harmon/simnews

JEB

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by JEB » Tue, 23 Jul 1996 04:00:00


> I think that (currently) even a P200 is unable to get this game
> running at >20fps in SVGA with all the details turned on.

> I think that MPS did a great mistake by not making use of VESA 2.0
> extensions (like the ones provided by UNIVBE o SDD52) because this
> feature could be very useful since GP2 is a 32 bit MS-DOS app which makes
> use of the so called 32bit MS-DOS extenders widely used by programs
> like Quake, DN3D and ICR2. I noticed a sensible improvement when I
> run Quake (shareware) with SDD52 and a friend of mine reported that
> he's got good results with ICR2 and DN3D.

> Perhaps we'll have to wait for a DirectX Win95 version or for a
> specific version engineered for 3D gfx cards support.

> Best,
> Roberto
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Strhold Sistemi EDP
> Reggio Emilia      ITALY
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Acca', nisciuno e' fess !
>                               (TOM - the red cat, Silvester's friend)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the balance of your note. It would appear that the graphics
load is very heavy on most machines. For the record, GP2 runs at the
highest frame rate with full detail on, on a P6 200, with a 4 meg video
card. So there is a machine that can do it as published.
I do agree, as stated, that there should be some improvement on the
matter, as if only the top end machines can run it full detail, why
have the full detail then.

JEB

Paul L. Finnemor

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Paul L. Finnemor » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00


spoke the following words of wisdom...

Same here - P133 o/c to 180MHz, GP2 runs fine (nice and quick), Windows
curls up its toes and dies, spluttering GPFs as it coughs it's last
breath. The choice now is - go back to 133MHz and put up with poorer GP2
frame rates, or stay at 180MHz and never work again. Gee, let me
think...

regards,

Paul
***********************************************************************
*             Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian             *

*    "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..."    *
***********************************************************************

Lars Birkemos

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Lars Birkemos » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00

No No...
A motorized, Mercedes powered scateboard in Quake, featuring texture mapped blondes in
the hallways, THATS what we would like to see :-||

LB

Imre Olajos, Jr

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Imre Olajos, Jr » Wed, 24 Jul 1996 04:00:00


> I find GP2 even slows down on a P-Pro 200 (Natoma/Fastvid/etc). It is
> still incapable of maintaining 25fps starting from 26th at Monaco, and
> until we have a PC that can do that without slowdown we can't say there
> is a PC to "properly" run GP2.

John and others!

Yesterday I was committed to squeeze the best possible frame rate out of GP2
and I have experimented a lot with it. I used to have the slowdown during
accidents and at times when smoke appeared on my P133, but now it's GONE!

Here's the little "trick" I found to work all the time: in the graphics
option menu set the target frame rate to something 2.0 (or more) lower than
the projected (calculated) frame rate.

For example, on my machine with most SVGA textures on, no mirror textures and
all objects drawn the projected (calculated) frame rate that GP2 gives me is
17.0. If I set my target frame rate to 17.0, I will see the usual slowdown/
crawling machine effects. However, if I set the target frame rate to 15.0
(without changing anything else), there are no slowdowns and the game handles
much better (smoother graphics, more responsive) !!!

I have no idea why this is so, but it does work for me. Try it out and let me

my P133/32MB EDO RAM/Matrox w/ 4MB WRAM machine has a processor occupancy of
100-110% on Hockenheim, and it looks darn good!)

_____________________________________________________________________________
LaLa (Imre Olajos, Jr.)      _/ean /\/\ichel _/arre  and  -=\/=- angelis  fan
WWW : http://homepage.interaccess.com/~lala                       |    |


~~~ []/\() ~~~~~~~~~~ "Music should be free." /Vangelis/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rob Jenki

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Rob Jenki » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00



***y good question that - also why does ICR II run so well in svga?

Rob

Lennart Gr?nlu

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Lennart Gr?nlu » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:49:03 -0500, "Imre Olajos, Jr."


>Yesterday I was committed to squeeze the best possible frame rate out of GP2
>and I have experimented a lot with it. I used to have the slowdown during
>accidents and at times when smoke appeared on my P133, but now it's GONE!

>Here's the little "trick" I found to work all the time: in the graphics
>option menu set the target frame rate to something 2.0 (or more) lower than
>the projected (calculated) frame rate.

>For example, on my machine with most SVGA textures on, no mirror textures and
>all objects drawn the projected (calculated) frame rate that GP2 gives me is
>17.0. If I set my target frame rate to 17.0, I will see the usual slowdown/
>crawling machine effects. However, if I set the target frame rate to 15.0
>(without changing anything else), there are no slowdowns and the game handles
>much better (smoother graphics, more responsive) !!!

>I have no idea why this is so, but it does work for me. Try it out and let me

>my P133/32MB EDO RAM/Matrox w/ 4MB WRAM machine has a processor occupancy of
>100-110% on Hockenheim, and it looks darn good!)

I think the explanation goes like this:

25fps means each frame is displayed 1/25sec. = 0.04sec. on the screen.
15fps means each frame is displayed 1/15sec = 0.07sec. on the screen.

An arbitrary frame takes for example 0.06 seconds to calculate on your
computer. Therefore with 25fps the computer has to slow down because
you only reserved 0.04sec. to calculate and display that frame. But
with 15fps your computer has 0.07sec. to do the job, and therefore it
can relax for a whole 0.01sec.

So with a lower framerate you are simply reserving more time to
calculate and display each frame, and therefore you will not
experiences so many SLOWDOWNS in the game. (In the sense of
playability/gameplay I suppose this is a sort of "smoothness")

But you are not getting more SMOOTHNESS (in terms of the following
definition) with a lower framerate - an example:

You are travelling with 83 meters/second (about 300 km/h). Observe a
sign on the trackside:

1)  with 25fps (which was equal to 0.04sec/frame):
then between 2 frames, the sign has moved 0.04 x 83 = 3.3 meters.

2)  with 15fps (which was equal to 0.07sec/frame):
then between 2 frames, the sign has moved 0.07 x 83 = 5.8 meters.

In other words, the sign is not drawn in so many frames with a low
framerate as with a high framerate, and therefore is the movement not
as smooth.

However, 15fps can look smooth - for instance many cartoons are drawn
with only 12fps and still looks smooth, but not as smooth as Disney's
25fps though.

That's it, in my view anyway - do correct me if i'm wrong or unclear
on something.
--
Lennart Gr?nlund

http://www.pip.dknet.dk/~pip2351/

dickb

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by dickb » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00

I have a P5-150 that can run Quake in 640x480 at an average of 17fps. Since
generally speeking 20fps is considered the threshold where animation appears
smooth I think a well tuned 166 should be quite smooth at the same.

Mark Dybal

GP2 - Poor Graphics Performance?

by Mark Dybal » Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:00:00




>spoke the following words of wisdom...

>>During this weekend I tried to overclock my machine to 166 MHZ (cbench
>>went from 181 to 200) but I had to give up because some apps exited
>>with GPF faults (Windoze) but GP2 worked flawlessly (sp?). I noticed

>Same here - P133 o/c to 180MHz, GP2 runs fine (nice and quick), Windows
>curls up its toes and dies, spluttering GPFs as it coughs it's last
>breath. The choice now is - go back to 133MHz and put up with poorer GP2
>frame rates, or stay at 180MHz and never work again. Gee, let me
>think...

>regards,

>Paul
>***********************************************************************
>*             Paul L. Finnemore - Apprentice Veterinarian             *

>*    "I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere..."    *
>***********************************************************************

You may be able to wire up the turbo switch to switch between 133MHz and
180MHz if the change only requires a jumper on/off, or maybe a
combination of turbo switch and keylock?

--
Mark Dyball


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.