My God GP4 is painful!

I can't understand what in the world they were thinking of to release it like this. I know my site is primarily EA/ISI F1 based and I could be accused of bias, but honestly... I have an XP 1700+ @ 1600 Mhz. A GF3 Ti 200 OC to 500 level. 512 Mb PC 2700 DDR. It auto calibrates to 26 FPS at 100% Processor occupancy. Now I could accept this if the images were stunning, but besides a bit of camber in the tracks here and there, the detail is MUCH lower than F1-2002. Kerbs for example are blurred and 'blobby' in places. Track textures are washed out. In fact all of the texturing is off. It appears stretched badly in places. Sharp poly joins are visable etc etc... I can run this on an empty track with no weather effects and all overlays switched off, no bump mapping or environmental effects, just a static emap and a lot of other options turned down at 25 FPS with 100% PO? At 1024X768 IS this a joke?? OK if sweet rain reflections are displayed and 22 cars, I can accept slowdown but this is abysmal, and on a plain empty track. As a test, I set my Graphics options all low. Set res to 800X600 and ran with 60 % PO at Hockenheim at 35 FPS. It looked, felt and gave all the feedback of doing 20 MPH. Please someone tell me I've done something wrong. Also, for those yet to buy the game, there's a bonus sub-game included. It's an adventure game ( a dying breed unfortunately) and is called Wheel calibration. The goal is to get a steering wheel and it's axis recognised and calibrated. Nice to have this hidden extra, but they've set the puzzles too hard I think. All frustration and no reward... Back soon with a big review. Actually Rousseau will, he's going to enjoy it I'm sure. Cheers Ian

This is exactly what I've encountered, to a tee, with an almost exact spec'ed system. I honestly spent 15 minutes the first time calibrating the wheel. Thank goodness I actually saved a profile at one point. Having done that, it only took me 10 minutes to calibrate the 2nd time I played it. -2xU "Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S4JQ8.3547$[email hidden]... I can't understand what in the world they were thinking of to release it like this. I know my site is primarily EA/ISI F1 based and I could be accused of bias, but honestly... I have an XP 1700+ @ 1600 Mhz. A GF3 Ti 200 OC to 500 level. 512 Mb PC 2700 DDR. It auto calibrates to 26 FPS at 100% Processor occupancy. Now I could accept this if the images were stunning, but besides a bit of camber in the tracks here and there, the detail is MUCH lower than F1-2002. Kerbs for example are blurred and 'blobby' in places. Track textures are washed out. In fact all of the texturing is off. It appears stretched badly in places. Sharp poly joins are visable etc etc... I can run this on an empty track with no weather effects and all overlays switched off, no bump mapping or environmental effects, just a static emap and a lot of other options turned down at 25 FPS with 100% PO? At 1024X768 IS this a joke?? OK if sweet rain reflections are displayed and 22 cars, I can accept slowdown but this is abysmal, and on a plain empty track. As a test, I set my Graphics options all low. Set res to 800X600 and ran with 60 % PO at Hockenheim at 35 FPS. It looked, felt and gave all the feedback of doing 20 MPH. Please someone tell me I've done something wrong. Also, for those yet to buy the game, there's a bonus sub-game included. It's an adventure game ( a dying breed unfortunately) and is called Wheel calibration. The goal is to get a steering wheel and it's axis recognised and calibrated. Nice to have this hidden extra, but they've set the puzzles too hard I think. All frustration and no reward... Back soon with a big review. Actually Rousseau will, he's going to enjoy it I'm sure. Cheers Ian

"Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S4JQ8.3547$[email hidden]... I can't understand what in the world they were thinking of to release it like this. I agree Ian. Here's my review: Bought it, installed it, attempted to callibrate my BRD Sim Classic wheel and Speed7 pedals together with RS Shifter, failed, tried to drive without brakes at Silverstone, went 0.5 mile, exited the car and game, uninstalled the game and taking it back to the shop tomorrow. Thanks heavens for Game's no quibbles refund policy. This is the shoddiest piece of software I have ever seen. Phil --- Racesim Central Administrator http://www.racesimcentral.com

> This is the shoddiest piece of software I have ever seen. > > Phil What worries me is that some people think it's fantastic. WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE ON I mean - the same sort of person who'd give GP4 90%+ in a review is ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO VOTE? That un-nerves me Doug

Douglas Ellison wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > This is the shoddiest piece of software I have ever seen. > > > > Phil > > What worries me is that some people think it's fantastic. > > WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE ON > > I mean - the same sort of person who'd give GP4 90%+ in a review is ACTUALLY > ALLOWED TO VOTE? That un-nerves me

It's worse than that, Doug, they can serve on a jury! Gerry

They can have children! "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > Douglas Ellison wrote: > > > > > This is the shoddiest piece of software I have ever seen. > > > > > > Phil > > > > What worries me is that some people think it's fantastic. > > > > WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE ON > > > > I mean - the same sort of person who'd give GP4 90%+ in a review is

ACTUALLY > > ALLOWED TO VOTE? That un-nerves me > > It's worse than that, Doug, they can serve on a jury! > > Gerry

"Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S4JQ8.3547$[email hidden]... >I can't understand what in the world they were thinking of to release itlike this. >I know my site is primarily EA/ISI F1 based and I could be accused of bias,but honestly... >I have an XP 1700+ @ 1600 Mhz. A GF3 Ti 200 OC to 500 level. 512 Mb PC 2700DDR. >It auto calibrates to 26 FPS at 100% Processor occupancy. I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3 architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have the fill-rate of the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500. I've got two systems, one equipped with a GF3 Ti500, and the other with a GF4 Ti4600. And there's a noticable difference. With the GF4, I can run GP4 at 1280x1024 maxed-out detail & effects at 35 fps, with PO at around 100%. And it looks superb. The GF3 Ti500 struggles to get anywhere near this level of performance. Both systems are powered by Athlon XPs. And I think its' right to target a new game at the current top hardware, as in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches & car-sets etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level. Johnny.

> I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3 > architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have the fill-rateof > the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500. > And I think its' right to target a new game at the current top hardware,as > in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches & car-sets > etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level. i think you need to learn the difference between targeting top hardware and "the programmer is very bad"

"Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote > I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3 > architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have the fill-rateof > the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500. I'm not a 3D card guru, but virtually all I've read recently when it comes to GF3->GF4 it all reads "GF3 is more than ample, GF4 if you need to have the latest, otherwise skip the generation cause this ain't no quantum leap". That's not to say they've been right, of course. Nor that GP4 isn't the game to be the exception from the rule. > I've got two systems, one equipped with a GF3 Ti500, and the other with a > GF4 Ti4600. And there's a noticable difference. With the GF4, I can runGP4 > at 1280x1024 maxed-out detail & effects at 35 fps, with PO at around 100%. > And it looks superb. The GF3 Ti500 struggles to get anywhere near thislevel > of performance. Both systems are powered by Athlon XPs. The same MHz Athlon XPs? Either way, I run other games that look a whole lot better than GP4 (heck, T2, a year old game, looks a whole lot better) at 2-3 times the FPS in GP4. > And I think its' right to target a new game at the current top hardware,as > in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches & car-sets > etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level. I wouldn't have a problem with that if GP4 looked better than any other 3D engine out there. It doesn't. It ain't even close. If someone had told me it was based on a slightly modified Quake II engine I wouldn't have doubted it if I hadn't already known different. If somebody asked me if they should buy GP4, my answer would come in a second and be "if you already have GP3 and don't plan on installing XP anytime soon, NO!". -- Frode

I personally think GP4 is a great game. It's no F1-2002, but F1-2002 is no GP4 either. Reasons why I like it: 1. I'm a Crammond fan. And I have been, since GP1. 2. The AI rock. 3. Unlike F1-2002, the cars and the replays look pretty delicious. 4. Plenty of detail. Reasons why I don't like it: 1. Sometimes feels like there's too much grip. 2. Occasionally sluggish. 3. I don't have a third reason. Basically, it's a good game once you get into it after a while. And get used to it. On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:09:15 GMT, "Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (45 lines)

> "Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3 > > architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have the fill-rate > of > > the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500. > > I'm not a 3D card guru, but virtually all I've read recently when it comes > to GF3->GF4 it all reads "GF3 is more than ample, GF4 if you need to have > the latest, otherwise skip the generation cause this ain't no quantum leap". > > That's not to say they've been right, of course. Nor that GP4 isn't the game > to be the exception from the rule. > > > I've got two systems, one equipped with a GF3 Ti500, and the other with a > > GF4 Ti4600. And there's a noticable difference. With the GF4, I can run > GP4 > > at 1280x1024 maxed-out detail & effects at 35 fps, with PO at around 100%. > > And it looks superb. The GF3 Ti500 struggles to get anywhere near this > level > > of performance. Both systems are powered by Athlon XPs. > > The same MHz Athlon XPs? Either way, I run other games that look a whole lot > better than GP4 (heck, T2, a year old game, looks a whole lot better) at 2-3 > times the FPS in GP4. > > > And I think its' right to target a new game at the current top hardware, > as > > in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches & car-sets > > etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level. > > I wouldn't have a problem with that if GP4 looked better than any other 3D > engine out there. It doesn't. It ain't even close. If someone had told me it > was based on a slightly modified Quake II engine I wouldn't have doubted it > if I hadn't already known different. > > If somebody asked me if they should buy GP4, my answer would come in a > second and be "if you already have GP3 and don't plan on installing XP > anytime soon, NO!". > > > > -- > Frode > >

Scott, You are entitled to your opinion. If you enjoy GP4 then that's all that matters. About your reasons, the only one that makes a difference is number two. Number One, I'm thinking, must have been a joke (in fact, is your entire post I joke, I'm wondering). How the cars look is incidental to whether the game is a simulator or not. Replays mean almost nothing, IMHO. My reasons for thinking GP4 is perhaps one of the worst F1 games, are as follows, 1. Controller issues. Plain stupid. The entire menu system is absolutely the weirdest I've ever seen. But still, the same, year after year. 2. System's hog. 3. Too easy. The best I've gotten on F1 2002 so far at Nurburgring is a 142.536, and that's after 200 laps (no aids). On Ace after two laps with GP4 I was already at 128.xxx. 4. Sense of Speed. Going 180 mph is like walking through my living room. GP4 is not an F1 simulator-- it's something else. I just think it is a very bad game. Alanb "Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I personally think GP4 is a great game. It's no F1-2002, but F1-2002 is noGP4 either.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Reasons why I like it: > > 1. I'm a Crammond fan. And I have been, since GP1. > 2. The AI rock. > 3. Unlike F1-2002, the cars and the replays look pretty delicious. > 4. Plenty of detail. > > Reasons why I don't like it: > > 1. Sometimes feels like there's too much grip. > 2. Occasionally sluggish. > 3. I don't have a third reason. > > Basically, it's a good game once you get into it after a while. And get

used to it. > > > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:09:15 GMT, "Frode" <[email hidden]>wrote: > > "Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3 > > > architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have thefill-rate > > of > > > the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500. > > > > I'm not a 3D card guru, but virtually all I've read recently when itcomes > > to GF3->GF4 it all reads "GF3 is more than ample, GF4 if you need tohave > > the latest, otherwise skip the generation cause this ain't no quantumleap". > > > > That's not to say they've been right, of course. Nor that GP4 isn't thegame > > to be the exception from the rule. > > > > > I've got two systems, one equipped with a GF3 Ti500, and the otherwith a > > > GF4 Ti4600. And there's a noticable difference. With the GF4, I canrun > > GP4 > > > at 1280x1024 maxed-out detail & effects at 35 fps, with PO at around100%. > > > And it looks superb. The GF3 Ti500 struggles to get anywhere near this > > level > > > of performance. Both systems are powered by Athlon XPs. > > > > The same MHz Athlon XPs? Either way, I run other games that look a wholelot > > better than GP4 (heck, T2, a year old game, looks a whole lot better) at2-3 > > times the FPS in GP4. > > > > > And I think its' right to target a new game at the current tophardware, > > as > > > in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches &car-sets > > > etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level. > > > > I wouldn't have a problem with that if GP4 looked better than any other3D > > engine out there. It doesn't. It ain't even close. If someone had toldme it > > was based on a slightly modified Quake II engine I wouldn't have doubtedit

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > if I hadn't already known different. > > > > If somebody asked me if they should buy GP4, my answer would come in a > > second and be "if you already have GP3 and don't plan on installing XP > > anytime soon, NO!". > > > > > > > > -- > > Frode > > > > > > >

"Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<S4JQ8.3547$[email hidden]>... > Also, for those yet to buy the game, there's a bonus sub-game included. > It's an adventure game ( a dying breed unfortunately) and is called > Wheel calibration. The goal is to get a steering wheel and it's axis > recognised and calibrated. Nice to have this hidden extra, but they've > set the puzzles too hard I think. All frustration and no reward... Thankfully ISI has continued to carry the Crammond torch in this regard. :) ------ Dear ISI, Your simulations are very nice but would be at least the equal of the mighty Papyrus sims if you did the following: 1. Copy Papyrus replay system. 2. Copy Papyrus controller configuration. 3. Copy Papyrus menu layout. Sorry about FOA's inability to grasp the concept of multiplayer, btw, hope that gets sorted - perhaps Bernie/Max have had some bad experiences playing Quake with disgruntled F1 fans? Sincerely, Jason

yeah but you should read between the lines because they wrote that they drove with the keyboard so you KNOW what sort of gamer they are : !! "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Douglas Ellison wrote: > > > > > This is the shoddiest piece of software I haveever seen. > > > > > > Phil > > > > What worries me is that some people think it'sfantastic. > > > > WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE ON > > > > I mean - the same sort of person who'd give GP490%+ in a review is ACTUALLY > > ALLOWED TO VOTE? That un-nerves me > > It's worse than that, Doug, they can serve on a jury! > > Gerry

Why would he need a GF4 for a game that was begun in 93?. Look at Doom3, and look at GP4.. why do Doom3 run great on GF3, when GP4 doesnt?. Oh yes. i guess Geoff is a good in programming graphics-engines, and John Carmack is well.. just another wannabe.. come back when you get doom3 run in 10fps on GF5 ;) "Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af0e37$e0d$[email hidden]... > > "Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:S4JQ8.3547$[email hidden]... > >I can't understand what in the world they were thinking of to release it > like this. > >I know my site is primarily EA/ISI F1 based and I could be accused ofbias, > but honestly... > >I have an XP 1700+ @ 1600 Mhz. A GF3 Ti 200 OC to 500 level. 512 Mb PC2700 > DDR. > >It auto calibrates to 26 FPS at 100% Processor occupancy. > > I think you need a more up-to-date graphics accelerator. The GeForce3 > architecture was laid-down in early 2001, and doesn't have the fill-rateof > the current cards such as the GF4 Ti4600, or even Radeon 8500. > > I've got two systems, one equipped with a GF3 Ti500, and the other with a > GF4 Ti4600. And there's a noticable difference. With the GF4, I can runGP4 > at 1280x1024 maxed-out detail & effects at 35 fps, with PO at around 100%. > And it looks superb. The GF3 Ti500 struggles to get anywhere near thislevel > of performance. Both systems are powered by Athlon XPs. > > And I think its' right to target a new game at the current top hardware,as

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in a year or so, the game will be well estabished with patches & car-sets > etc, and that hardware will by then have become entry-level. > > Johnny. > > > > >

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I personally think GP4 is a great game. It's no F1-2002, but F1-2002 is noGP4 either. > > Reasons why I like it: > > 1. I'm a Crammond fan. And I have been, since GP1. > 2. The AI rock. Why do everyone think the AI is so good in GP4??. Maybe ive been playing online against human beings too long to even like AI-players a little, but i think the AI makes stupid misstakes, dont see you too often, ram into your rear, bump into your car-side like it was a BTCC-race or something etc. Just the start of the list. They arent any challenge really either, since they let you pass easily. (Maybe thats why many feel its so great, since you can overtake easily, making you think you are M.Schumacher :) but it gets boring after 2minutes.

> Why would he need a GF4 for a game that was begun in 93?. > Look at Doom3, and look at GP4.. why do Doom3 run great on GF3, when GP4 > doesnt?. doom3 ? doom3 aint out yet..do you mean quake 3 ? > Oh yes. i guess Geoff is a good in programming graphics-engines, and John > Carmack is well.. just another wannabe.. come back when you get doom3 runin > 10fps on GF5 ;)

And their children can have children... Dear god, no wonder the world is so screwed up! Milhouse "Ian Bell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ykNQ8.7427$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> They can have children! > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Douglas Ellison wrote: > > > > > > > This is the shoddiest piece of software I have ever seen. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > What worries me is that some people think it's fantastic. > > > > > > WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE ON > > > > > > I mean - the same sort of person who'd give GP4 90%+ in a review is > ACTUALLY > > > ALLOWED TO VOTE? That un-nerves me > > > > It's worse than that, Doug, they can serve on a jury! > > > > Gerry > >

Doom3 isnt out yet, but its been shown at E3 for example, and it didnt have any problems on GF3 to show some of the best graphics in the buisness. "Papa Lazarou" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V2XQ8.343107$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > Why would he need a GF4 for a game that was begun in 93?. > > Look at Doom3, and look at GP4.. why do Doom3 run great on GF3, when GP4 > > doesnt?. > > doom3 ? doom3 aint out yet..do you mean quake 3 ? > > > Oh yes. i guess Geoff is a good in programming graphics-engines, and

John > > Carmack is well.. just another wannabe.. come back when you get doom3run > in > > 10fps on GF5 ;) > > >

"Ian Bell" wrote: > I can't understand what in the world they were thinking of > to release it like this. Ian, it seems to be a worryingly common trend - not restricted to GP4. Check the posts on F1-2001 - discoveries to modify ini files to allow windowed mode to get any decent framerates. More tweaks to lod settings etc. Numerous posts regarding controller problems. Limit to two controllers. Then the bizarre ghost images in the mirrors if you had the current detonator drivers running at the time of release - fixed by EA in timely fashion it should be said. Pretty much all of this has been fixed by the sim community. Our thanks go out to them (and to the work on your own site, Ian) CMR2 stutterd like hell for many until a fix was found re the sound card configuration Nascar 2002 required for many a tweak to get framerates back up after a patch. As for the man hours spent trying to fix the (IMHO) way below par AI in F1-2001, I find it incredible that such experienced RASers should drive GP4 for 3 laps, dismiss it as crap and delete/return it. Just as people had F1-2001 running well on mid spec machines whilst others on higher spec machines had to reduce the details to next to nothing to get any frame rate in theearly days, the same is true to a degree with GP4. It runs fine on my 1.4 Athlon with a GF3 - admittedly not as many FPS as F1-2002 but still acceptable. I think it looks better than F1-2002 which has too cartoony a view for me - purely personal preference. I know users which much more powerful machines are having trouble, suggesting some tweaking may fix it. Secondly my dual controller setup (Momo & Thrustmaster Modena/Formula Pro hybrid) worked first time with split axis. Guess I may just have been lucky. The physics are subjective - F1-2002 gives a more involved ride, though the default GP4 setups have a lot of wing. I haven't yet tried to fiddle with them to see how reducing grip effects the experience - I am sure that plenty will. The reason I haven't is because wheel to wheel racing is so good. The AI are really excellent. The AI performance is consistent with the human driver throughout a lap - my gripe with EAs series. The result is an immersive race. I am sure that a hotlap comparison would favour F1-2002 for most here. It may still be novelty time but I do think GP4 has potential as a single player racing sim. The graphics engine is tardy - but it does seem to be able to run at acceptable levels on even mid range machines with some time. Plus it still has those annoying things like black flag rules that you really would expect to have gone by now. Mind you I considered the GP3 graphics engine unplayable in comparison with other modern sims, so I guess they had a lot to do! With its poor AI and multiplayer limited to high bandwidth users only, it would seem easy to argue F1-2001 is the disaster out of the box. Seeing just how much has been done to it suggests that other new releases should be given sufficient time before being dismissed after several laps. In conclusion I don't believe either GP4 nor F1-2002 will truly satisfy this group. An F1/Cart sim to the quality of NR2002 is what we really want - but that is hardly a discovery on my part. I am just not sure that RAS should write off GP4 in preference to F1-2002 as a single player racing sim just yet - though I may be alone. Cheers Tony

"drink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I0PQ8.2591$[email hidden]... > i think you need to learn the difference between targeting top hardwareand > "the programmer is very bad" I'm well aware of the difference between the above thankyou, and stand by my comments. To say that Geoff Crammond is "a very bad programmer" is plainly stupid. Johnny.

"Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LePQ8.5206$[email hidden]... > I'm not a 3D card guru, but virtually all I've read recently when itcomes > to GF3->GF4 it all reads "GF3 is more than ample, GF4 if you need to have > the latest, otherwise skip the generation cause this ain't no quantumleap". > > That's not to say they've been right, of course. Nor that GP4 isn't thegame > to be the exception from the rule. The GF4 Ti (especially in Ti4600 form) is a quantum leap. The memory throughput of 20 Gb/sec is actually double that of a Ti500, and nearly 3 times that of a Ti200. A game like GP4 clearly requires as much memory bandwidth from the card as possible, particularly at high-res. If you play all your games at 800x600 then yes the difference would not be so marked. > The same MHz Athlon XPs? Either way, I run other games that look a wholelot > better than GP4 (heck, T2, a year old game, looks a whole lot better) at2-3 > times the FPS in GP4. The XPs are only 66Mhz different. One is a 2000+, the other a model 1900+. It's evident that my cards are having much more of an influence on GP4 performance than the differing CPUs. > I wouldn't have a problem with that if GP4 looked better than any other 3D > engine out there. It doesn't. It ain't even close. If someone had told meit > was based on a slightly modified Quake II engine I wouldn't have doubtedit > if I hadn't already known different. Maybe you ought to check your monitor, or your glasses :) The first time I drove around Monaco on the XP2000+/GF4 Ti4600 system it was jaw-dropping ! > If somebody asked me if they should buy GP4, my answer would come in a > second and be "if you already have GP3 and don't plan on installing XP > anytime soon, NO!". I play pretty-much all the racing sims, to the exclusion of almost anything else. I for one won't be going back to GP3 after trying GP4. Grand Prix 3 is suddenly looking like a 20th century sim. :) Johnny.

"Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote > times that of a Ti200. A game like GP4 clearly requires as much memory > bandwidth from the card as possible, particularly at high-res. If you play > all your games at 800x600 then yes the difference would not be so marked. Again, my point.. What for? If you really insist and feel that it looks great (which seems to be the case), then we're at a dead end here and will just have to agree to disagree. However, in my case, I can't figure out what exactly it needs cutting edge hardware for. Its engine looks dated compared to games that came out 1+ years ago. Driving around Monaco with everything set to max offers me very little more compared to driving around it with calibrated settings. I tried both. The buildings are still extremely low detail textures. The crowd are still totally flat 2D cardboard cutouts, with the exception of a few flags (animated with a total of 5ish frames looks like) totally static. It's not far from GP2 tbh. They've been smoothed out and a tiny bit of detail added, but to warrant the extra GPU and CPU needed it would really need to have people up on the balconies waving and confetti flying. -- Frode

Sebastion Melmoth wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:59:39 GMT, "Frode" > <[email hidden]> bleeted: > > >>I tried both. The >>buildings are still extremely low detail textures. The crowd are still >>totally flat 2D cardboard cutouts, >> > > Name one sim that uses 3D spectators.

Somehow they demand from GC three times more than they expect from others. Of course, standing with your car close to a freaking wall and checking out the pixels of the texture will look, well, like a texture, duh. The impression while driving is very convincing, at least to me. I just drove the first 25 laps of a Melbourne race in the rain, and I didn't have that much fun racing in a long time. -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

"Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote > >I tried both. The > >buildings are still extremely low detail textures. The crowd are still > >totally flat 2D cardboard cutouts, > Name one sim that uses 3D spectators. Name one sim that needs the same hardware as GP4 does to achieve the same visual appearance and framerates. Not that I've actually tried every sim there is and can say for sure there isn't such a beast, but based on what others say in this newsgroup it seems highly unlikely. My point keeps getting missed here, and it's that apart from minor graphical tweaks it's just GP3.5. Except you need twice the rig to run it at the same resolution and fps. If it had been a $15 upgrade meant to address XP compatability and adding reflections to the car hood, no problem. But it's not. It's marketed as the next big thing. Which it just ain't. -- Frode

"Ronald Stoehr" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Name one sim that uses 3D spectators. > Somehow they demand from GC three times more than they expect from others. I was replying to the guy's comment that there was no 2D in the game. Howcome noone around here bothers reading stuff in context. > Of course, standing with your car close to a freaking wall and checking > out the pixels of the texture will look, well, like a texture, duh. > The impression while driving is very convincing, at least to me. One of the first things I noticed was how flat and out of place the trackside objects looked. I guess it didn't help any that my position on the Monaco grid placed me right in front of one of the cardboard spectators. If it's meant to be seen at speed only, don't put them along the grid, I'd say. > I just drove the first 25 laps of a Melbourne race in the rain, and Ididn't have that much fun racing in a long > time. I have fun playing it too. Countrary to some others I'm not saying the game is total crap. I'm just saying in graphical looks and performance, it's far from cutting edge. When it comes to added features it's not worthy of a full numerical increment. -- Frode

"> Driving around Monaco with everything set to max offers me very little more > compared to driving around it with calibrated settings. I tried both. The > buildings are still extremely low detail textures. The crowd are still > totally flat 2D cardboard cutouts, with the exception of a few flags > (animated with a total of 5ish frames looks like) totally static. It's not > far from GP2 tbh. They've been smoothed out and a tiny bit of detailadded, > but to warrant the extra GPU and CPU needed it would really need to have > people up on the balconies waving and confetti flying." With a GF4 you can have the speed of a GF3 but with FSAA and hardly a drop in performance. Thats what I'm talking about :) I run F12002 with 2xAA @ 1024x768x32 and wouldn't go back to not using it.. definately worth it. Plus my system isn't that costly....just buy the right CPU and you'll go a long way.. -- System: Asus P4S533 P4 1.6a @ 2.560Ghz Kingmax DDR333 256Mb @ 200Mhz Gainward 128Mb Ti4200 Golden Sample 340/580Mhz SBLive! 2 x 20GB Seagate Barracudda III's Creative DVXR2 Aopen 24x CD Writer Windows XP build 2600 3DMark2001 Default Score 12597

"Peregrine" <[email hidden]> wrote > With a GF4 you can have the speed of a GF3 but with FSAA and hardly a drop > in performance. > Thats what I'm talking about :) Whoppie. FSAA means so little to me that even in games where I get great FPS with it enabled, I never do it. It certainly won't make the trackside objects in GP4 more lifelike no matter how many x'ed FSAA you enable. It won't make them any more detailed either. Or give the flags more lifelike animations. In fact, I don't see why you found it relevant enough to make this post...? -- Frode

Well, i also heard it run on ATI afterwards. But I assumed it was GF3, since Carmack has shown it on GF3 before (Apple + Carmack show etc) "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:13:04 GMT, "Andreas Nystr�m" <[email hidden]> > bleeted: > > >Doom3 isnt out yet, but its been shown at E3 for example, and it didnthave

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >any problems > >on GF3 to show some of the best graphics in the buisness. > > It was shown on a prototype ATI R300 as far as I know. Never seen any > mention of it being shown on a GF3. > -- > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

<snip> > Your simulations are very nice but would be at least the equal of the > mighty Papyrus sims if you did the following:<snip> I thought you said you hated Papy-nazis? ; )

<snip> <snip> I thought you said you hated Papy-nazis? ; )

> In conclusion I don't believe either GP4 nor F1-2002 will truly satisfy > this group. An F1/Cart sim to the quality of NR2002 is what we really > want - but that is hardly a discovery on my part. I am just not sure > that RAS should write off GP4 in preference to F1-2002 as a single > player racing sim just yet - though I may be alone. I think for most people in this group, realistic car handling and physics are the No.1 priorities. This is the reason that GP4 is being burned in here - it seems to trip over badly at the first hurdle. This is also the reason that everyone gave F1 2001 a chance despite (overall) being a pretty poor quality release. F1 2002 is head and shoulders above everything else in this most important department, and that's the main reason GP4 isn't getting a look in.

> With a GF4 you can have the speed of a GF3 but with FSAA and hardly a drop > in performance. > Thats what I'm talking about :) > I run F12002 with 2xAA @ 1024x768x32 and wouldn't go back to not usingit.. > definately worth it. > Plus my system isn't that costly....just buy the right CPU and you'll go a > long way.. Yeah, though AMD gives better value for money.. ; ) 2xFSAA does virtually nothing - 1280x960x32 looks far better than 1024x768x32 with 2xAA and it runs quicker too. Sounds like you've swallowed Nvidia's marketing hook, line and sinker or you've got a crap monitor. I've got a GF4 Ti4600 and I wouldn't say it's a quantum leap over the GF3 - more of a minor upgrade.

"Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote > I remember people begging for a 3D accelerated version of GP2 and he > delivered just that. But noooo, that wasn't good enough. Geez, people > loved GP2 and it didn't even have wheels showing on the car from the > cockpit view. GP2 was a HUGE leap up from WC. GP3 was a minor upgrade to GP2 and people noticed. I wasn't really unhappy with purchasing GP3, I was just mildly disappointed. It had numerous bugs and features lacking, yet it saw only 1 patch that didn't even fix the worst bugs. It didn't have the multiplayer features that was promised pre-release, nor did it recieve a patch including it. Not even the "pay-for-me" 2000 season had that afaik. So now GP4 is released and people are starting to really show their discontent. Yet another minor upgrade for a full game price. This time Geoff ain't getting my dough. If enough have that attitude it will show on the sales (I really doubt that'll happen though, cause the magazines will give it rave reviews) and then maybe GP5 will really be the game the GP series deserves. -- Frode

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 09:09:44 -0400, Sebastion Melmoth <[email hidden]> wrote: >It was shown on a prototype ATI R300 as far as I know. Never seen any >mention of it being shown on a GF3. When the GF3 was introduced, they showed Doom3 on it. Andre

"Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fW2R8.5412$[email hidden]... > Driving around Monaco with everything set to max offers me very littlemore > compared to driving around it with calibrated settings. I tried both. The > buildings are still extremely low detail textures. The crowd are still > totally flat 2D cardboard cutouts, with the exception of a few flags > (animated with a total of 5ish frames looks like) totally static. It's not > far from GP2 tbh. Are you just trolling now? I think to say GP4 is not far from GP2 is ridiculous. GP2 max res was only 800x600, it was limited to 25 fps, there was no proper collision physics, the cars couldn't overturn, there were no weather effects, there was no virtual cockpit, there were no revolving wheels, there was no GPS track data, no 3D marshalls and crew, no track tyre marks, not to mention less sophisticated AI and data logging. If you run GP2 and GP4 side-by-side you'll see that the graphical and other improvements are infact enormous. Johnny.

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af47ub$aldvc$[email hidden]... (FSAA) > Sounds like you've swallowed > Nvidia's marketing hook, line and sinker or you've got a crap monitor. FSAA was infact a 3dfx development. The technology first saw the light of day in the home desktop environment with the 3dfx Voodoo 4 and 5's in 2000. This was after years of it being used in professional applications. ATi and nVidia saw the benefits and quickly incorporated it into their next products. I've tried GP4 both with and without AA enabled, and there's no doubt that it does infact smooth-out the jagged edges. The arc of the front tyres is particularly improved. nVidia did a lot of work on the GF4 architecture to ensure that the performance hit with AA was not as great as had been with their previous GF3 products. Johnny.

"Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af4mu6$7ng$[email hidden]... > > "Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fW2R8.5412$[email hidden]... ><snippers> > > Are you just trolling now? I think to say GP4 is not far from GP2 is > ridiculous. GP2 max res was only 800x600, it was limited to 25 fps, there > was no proper collision physics, the cars couldn't overturn, there were no > weather effects, there was no virtual cockpit, there were no revolving > wheels, there was no GPS track data, no 3D marshalls and crew, no tracktyre > marks, not to mention less sophisticated AI and data logging. If you runGP2 > and GP4 side-by-side you'll see that the graphical and other improvements > are infact enormous. > > Johnny. > How many of those features you listed above debuted (debutted?) in GP3? dave henrie

Johnny Moda wrote: > "Frode" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:fW2R8.5412$[email hidden]...snip

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>compared to driving around it with calibrated settings. I tried both. The >>buildings are still extremely low detail textures. The crowd are still >>totally flat 2D cardboard cutouts, with the exception of a few flags >>(animated with a total of 5ish frames looks like) totally static. It's not >>far from GP2 tbh. >> > > Are you just trolling now? I think to say GP4 is not far from GP2 is > ridiculous. GP2 max res was only 800x600, it was limited to 25 fps, there

Yes, he is. Why did never anyone call N2002 just N4.1?? Or EA 2k1 just EA 2k2... oh wait, they do!! ;) -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

Dave Henrie wrote: > "Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:af4mu6$7ng$[email hidden]...snip

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >>marks, not to mention less sophisticated AI and data logging. If you run >> > GP2 > >>and GP4 side-by-side you'll see that the graphical and other improvements >>are infact enormous. >> >>Johnny. >> >> > How many of those features you listed above debuted (debutted?) in GP3? > dave henrie

How many did in N4?? Oh wait, it's a Papy sim... -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<af388l$b169j$[email hidden]>... > <snip> > > Your simulations are very nice but would be at least the equal of the > > mighty Papyrus sims if you did the following: > <snip> > > I thought you said you hated Papy-nazis? ; ) If I were a Papy-nazi I wouldn't be looking forward to picking up F12k2. :) Jason

Sebastion Melmoth <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:15:35 +0200, Andre Warringa > <[email hidden]> bleeted: > > > >When the GF3 was introduced, they showed Doom3 on it. > > > >Andre > > Really? Not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe > because the first ever screen shots of Doom3 just came out recently > and they were shown on the R300.

wrong. Carmack showed a realtime demo of Doom 3 on some Macintosh expo about, oh, two years ago, I think. don�t know what graphics chipset he ran it on, but it could have been a GF3-prototype. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 gitaren er en sjingke

"Johnny Moda" <[email hidden]> wrote > Are you just trolling now? Nope, never do. >I think to say GP4 is not far from GP2 is ridiculous. From my point of view, no it isn't. > GP2 max res was only 800x600, it was limited to 25 fps Whereas GP4 will run decently in 1024x768 at 25fps with my current rig. The difference isn't all that huge. Either way resolution = eyecandy only. It doesn't look any less detailed in lower resolutions, just bigger. > there was no proper collision physics I happily pushed the AI cars off the track in WC. I'm quite sure they didn't suddenly make the cars just drive through eachother in GP2. More detailed pieces flying off is irrelevant. Pushing a car off affects the race the same regardless of how it looks. > the cars couldn't overturn That hardly makes or breaks the experience to me. True, cars toppling over and pieces flying all over the place is more realistic and obviously doesn't detract from the experience. But I drive a racing sim to race, not see cars crash realistically. What GP2 did quite happily do was totally break the car to pieces, lifting the nose 45 degrees and dumping it back down when hitting a cerb at an odd angle at 10kph. Actually GP3 did that too, I've yet to see it in GP4. Come to think of it, didn't GP2 add the ability for the cards to turn x degrees whereas GP3 enabled them to overturn completely? > there were no weather effects That only adds another environment to race in. I drive almost all my races in the dry and am quite happy with it. If a car blowing an engine in front of me made the track damn slippery, that would add something much more important. Immersion. >, there was no virtual cockpit Whoppie, instead of seeing a static dash you now see a dash bobbing about as your head is moved by G and a wheel turning. You couldn't even look sideways until GP4. So much for virtual cockpit as we know it from flightsims of years and years gone by. Either way it's a graphical addon, nothing else. >there were no revolving wheels If you prefer to watch the wheels turn while racing, you probably should consider your priorities. >there was no GPS track data That's the one very nice thing about GP4 as opposed to the prequels. Not that a fixed width track ruined the experience in the previous incarnations, but track layout being accurate is very nice. Score one for GP4 (this is actually where it scores its only point). > no 3D marshalls and crew And this improves the drive how, exactly? It doesn't. Parts of it ruins it imo. That guy saying "clear" when there's a string of 3 cars coming. Very realistic, I'm sure he would do that in real life. The crew waiting till I stop outside the garage after a flying lap, then not bothering to bring me into the garage, leaving me there for the rest of the qualifying. Clever clever and adds a lot to the realism. > no track tyre marks Extremely tiny graphical addition > not to mention less sophisticated AI They act much the same now. They're better at giving you room and using the room you give them, true, but they're still totally blind during qualifying. >and data logging. And a less accessible car setup screen layout to make it as hard as possible to use the extra data. In all honesty though, I never used data logging all that much. I got by fine on simply tweaking wings based on where I was losing time on track. >If you run GP2 and GP4 side-by-side you'll see that the graphical and otherimprovements > are infact enormous. Graphical improvements are there, obviously. But at the core of it, not a whole lot changed. A car losing a wing in a crash or going vertical then slamming back down causing it to lose a wing, makes no difference to me, the wing is lost and the effect on the race identical. What the GP series lacks isn't graphical doohickieys. That's what GC has been adding since GP2. It needs a more realistic and atmosphering F1 racing experience. That means safety car, stop/go penalties, drive-through penalties, realistic tyre wear (make it an actual point to go in and change tyres) etc. It doesn't need virtual cockpit, 3d pitcrew, more flat cardboard cutouts lining the track, cars breaking off into 200 pieces as opposed to 5. Those are sweet additions but they're not what makes the core simulation work and fun. I was disappointed when I went form GP2 to GP3, but not a whole lot so. From GP3 to GP4 is a whole different story. -- Frode

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:19:11 +0200, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: >How many did in N4?? Oh wait, it's a Papy sim... N4 is a MAJOR enhancement over N3. GP4 is HARDLY an enhancement over GP3. Andre

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:46:20 -0400, Sebastion Melmoth <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:15:35 +0200, Andre Warringa ><[email hidden]> bleeted: > > >>When the GF3 was introduced, they showed Doom3 on it. >> >>Andre > >Really? Not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe >because the first ever screen shots of Doom3 just came out recently >and they were shown on the R300. Can you provide proof?

Actually I downloaded that GF3 presentation from the internet so I saw it myself. I can't remember where I downloaded it from unfortunately :-/ Andre

On 23 Jun 2002 20:06:11 +0200, Gunnar Horrigmo <[email hidden]> wrote: >wrong. Carmack showed a realtime demo of Doom 3 on some Macintosh >expo about, oh, two years ago, I think. don�t know what graphics >chipset he ran it on, but it could have been a GF3-prototype. More info about that GF# presentation: They showed that famous rendered Pixar movie with a big and a small lamp. That lamp is now the logo of Pixar http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/aboutus/index.html. Only at the GF3 presentation the movie was not rendered, but calculated real time. After that they showed a bit of Doom 3. Maybe someone else remembers that presentation movie now and even knows where to download it? Andre

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:19:11 +0200, Ronald Stoehr > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>How many did in N4?? Oh wait, it's a Papy sim... >> > > N4 is a MAJOR enhancement over N3. > GP4 is HARDLY an enhancement over GP3.

Geez, I was comparing N4 and N2002. And the longer I drive GP4, the more I compare the diff between it and GP3 as the diff between N4 and N3. Turn off ALL driving aids, reduce wings a little and those cars do get very alive... -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now?

"Andre Warringa" > Actually I downloaded that GF3 presentation from the internet so I saw > it myself. I can't remember where I downloaded it from unfortunately > :-/ > > Andre I don't know if that was really a part of Doom III or just the rough work they had started on...concept code as-it-were. The way they were spouting off at this year's E3, THAT venue was the first demo of Doom III. dave henrie

Sebastion Melmoth wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:29:52 +1000, "Damien Smith" > <[email hidden]> bleeted: > > > >>Yeah, though AMD gives better value for money.. ; ) > > > Not if you do like he did and buy a P4 1.6A and get it to OC to > 2.5ghz. That's a BIG bang for the buck.

Until your P4 throttles back due to heat. :-( -- Fester

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:50:54 +0200, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: >Geez, I was comparing N4 and N2002. And the longer I >drive GP4, the more I compare the diff between it and GP3 >as the diff between N4 and N3. Please explain, in what way is GP4 so much better compared to GP3? Andre

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:16:24 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >"Andre Warringa" >> Actually I downloaded that GF3 presentation from the internet so I saw >> it myself. I can't remember where I downloaded it from unfortunately >> :-/ >> >> Andre > > I don't know if that was really a part of Doom III or just the rough work >they had started on...concept code as-it-were. The way they were spouting >off at this year's E3, THAT venue was the first demo of Doom III. >dave henrie >

Does anybody here remember the DooM Alpha release? Back then in 1993 or so? It required the enormous amount of 8MB RAM to load [I remember that because we couldn't test it anywhere else than on the university lab's newly acquired 486 DX-40's with 15-inch monitors and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (!) ], but later, ther final release only required 4MB of RAM... Was this something similar? -- __________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke \_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru _H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com '-_____|( remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying