Nascar 2002: Performance

I have read about the improved graphics in N2002 and how it will use texture compression when using Direct3D. N4 runs pretty good on my system now (see specs below), but I have determined that my CPU is the constraint in regards to frame rate. Does anyone know if N2002 will require steeper system specs to get the same frame rates as N4? Right now OpenGL is the choice for N4, but will N2002 run better under Direct3d? The reason I determined it was my CPU was that if I run a race with all graphics options at the highest and run at the back of a 43 car field, I get poor frame rates. If I run the replay (cockpit camera) I get great frame rates. Since in both cases the graphics card is doing the same amount of work it must be the CPU. I turn down the graphics options some and I get good performance. I know the graphics card is doing most of the work, but increased graphic options *does* put addtional load on the CPU. Add this to the phyiscs, ai, etc. and the CPU becomes the bottleneck. Will the texture compression put an additional load on the CPU or will this work be passed off to the Graphics card? System Specs: PIII 933 Geforce2 Ultra SB Live Value 256 Meg Ram Win98 First Edition Brian Oster

I don't think cpu is your problem at this point Brian. I have a nearly identical system. When running against AI in a 43 car field, the FR will drop to around 22-24 just as the green waves, and then it smooths out to anywhere from 40-80 FPS. My system is a P3-1gz and a 32mb GF2 card. Are you running OpenGL, and have you checked to be sure things like anti-alias and Vsync are turned off in your video properties? On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:40:33 GMT, Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

>I have read about the improved graphics in N2002 and how it will use >texture compression when using Direct3D. N4 runs pretty good on my >system now (see specs below), but I have determined that my CPU is the >constraint in regards to frame rate. Does anyone know if N2002 will >require steeper system specs to get the same frame rates as N4? Right >now OpenGL is the choice for N4, but will N2002 run better under >Direct3d? > >The reason I determined it was my CPU was that if I run a race with >all graphics options at the highest and run at the back of a 43 car >field, I get poor frame rates. If I run the replay (cockpit camera) I >get great frame rates. Since in both cases the graphics card is doing >the same amount of work it must be the CPU. I turn down the graphics >options some and I get good performance. I know the graphics card is >doing most of the work, but increased graphic options *does* put >addtional load on the CPU. Add this to the phyiscs, ai, etc. and the >CPU becomes the bottleneck. Will the texture compression put an >additional load on the CPU or will this work be passed off to the >Graphics card? > > >System Specs: >PIII 933 >Geforce2 Ultra >SB Live Value >256 Meg Ram >Win98 First Edition > >Brian Oster

Tim Wortman North American Simulation Series www.nasscar.com

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:57:46 GMT, [email hidden] (TimW) wrote: I am running OpenGL. Latest Detonator drivers (I think). I have turned off v-sync, anti-alis, etc. There is a guide that has been circulating around here (I am sure you have seen it) and I went through all the settings. Before my monitor died I was running at 1600x1280x16, showing 30 cars ahead, maximum car detail, draw ahead around 60%, etc. Basically Avg to High graphics settings, but not everything maxed out. At the drop of the flag and with most of the field in front of me I would get 25-30 fps. On replay however, I would get 80+ fps. With the new monitor I dropped to 1280x1024x16 and I am getting almost the exact same fps. Since, from the graphics cards point of view, the replay is the exact same as the live race, i.e. it still has to draw the exact same thing on the screen, the only difference is that the CPU is not having to calculate your car physics and the AI. The single biggest thing I can do to increase performance is lower draw ahead distance and the number of cars shown. I can crank car and world detail up all the way and run the highest resolution my monitor will support and the FPS stay about the same. But with the extra cars, the CPU now has to calculate graphics data to give to the graphics card. Same with draw ahead. I could be wrong and there is some little tweak somewhere that would gain me 40fps, but I really think I am CPU constrained. Your CPU is not a whole lot faster than mine, but it is faster... maybe just fast enough to calculate physics, AI and graphics data. I am not complaining, I can live with the performance of N4 on my system, I just hope N2002 does not put any more of a burden on the CPU.

Quoted text (47 lines)

>I don't think cpu is your problem at this point Brian. I have a >nearly identical system. When running against AI in a 43 car field, >the FR will drop to around 22-24 just as the green waves, and then it >smooths out to anywhere from 40-80 FPS. My system is a P3-1gz and a >32mb GF2 card. > >Are you running OpenGL, and have you checked to be sure things like >anti-alias and Vsync are turned off in your video properties? > >On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:40:33 GMT, Brian Oster ><bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote: > >>I have read about the improved graphics in N2002 and how it will use >>texture compression when using Direct3D. N4 runs pretty good on my >>system now (see specs below), but I have determined that my CPU is the >>constraint in regards to frame rate. Does anyone know if N2002 will >>require steeper system specs to get the same frame rates as N4? Right >>now OpenGL is the choice for N4, but will N2002 run better under >>Direct3d? >> >>The reason I determined it was my CPU was that if I run a race with >>all graphics options at the highest and run at the back of a 43 car >>field, I get poor frame rates. If I run the replay (cockpit camera) I >>get great frame rates. Since in both cases the graphics card is doing >>the same amount of work it must be the CPU. I turn down the graphics >>options some and I get good performance. I know the graphics card is >>doing most of the work, but increased graphic options *does* put >>addtional load on the CPU. Add this to the phyiscs, ai, etc. and the >>CPU becomes the bottleneck. Will the texture compression put an >>additional load on the CPU or will this work be passed off to the >>Graphics card? >> >> >>System Specs: >>PIII 933 >>Geforce2 Ultra >>SB Live Value >>256 Meg Ram >>Win98 First Edition >> >>Brian Oster > > > > Tim Wortman > North American Simulation Series > www.nasscar.com

Brian Oster

This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a 128MB card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed to see all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. - Eric "STXRacing�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > So... you'd say that if you could get a 128mb card instead of 64mb, the > performance would be better? Scott PA-Scott

Sheesh. You have GOT to be kidding me! -Larry "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MDB58.21026$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: > > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a 128MB > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed to see > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. > > - Eric > > > "STXRacing�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > So... you'd say that if you could get a 128mb card instead of 64mb, the > > performance would be better? > > Scott > PA-Scott > >

You're right about the difference between replay and live as the cpu does the AI calculations Brian. I neglected to ask what resolution you were running, and that is clearly the difference between our systems. I'm running in 800x600, mainly because it makes the chat text so much easier to read during MP races. On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:38:45 GMT, Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:57:46 GMT, [email hidden] (TimW) wrote: > >I am running OpenGL. Latest Detonator drivers (I think). I have >turned off v-sync, anti-alis, etc. There is a guide that has been >circulating around here (I am sure you have seen it) and I went >through all the settings. Tim Wortman North American Simulation Series www.nasscar.com

Actually this may not end up being to be the case. While it's true that NR2002's OpenGL renderer will ship without support for texture compression, we are hoping get that feature added in a patch. That means a 32MB or 64MB card (with texture compression support) would be fine for OpenGL. - Eric "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MDB58.21026$[email hidden]... > This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: > > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a 128MB > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed to see > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels.

I was just about to add that post over here ;) Scott PA-Scott "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a397v0$56m$[email hidden]... > Actually this may not end up being to be the case. While it's true that > NR2002's OpenGL renderer will ship without support for texturecompression, > we are hoping get that feature added in a patch. That means a 32MB or64MB

Quoted text (10 lines)

> card (with texture compression support) would be fine for OpenGL. > > - Eric > > > "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:MDB58.21026$[email hidden]... > > This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: > > > > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a

128MB > > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed tosee > > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. > >

Once that support is added in (I'll assume you guys will pull it off), would we expect the same OpenGL advantage if using nVIDIA hardware as exists in N4? OpenGL certainly runs better and looks better on my GeForce card in N4. I am not opposed to using D3D for NR2002 if it performs well, just wondering how changed the new graphics system is... Marc "Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a397v0$56m$[email hidden]... > Actually this may not end up being to be the case. While it's true that > NR2002's OpenGL renderer will ship without support for texturecompression, > we are hoping get that feature added in a patch. That means a 32MB or64MB

Quoted text (10 lines)

> card (with texture compression support) would be fine for OpenGL. > > - Eric > > > "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:MDB58.21026$[email hidden]... > > This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: > > > > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a

128MB > > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed tosee > > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. > >

Thats a good question. I installed the demo and while the D3D graphics look way better than the D3D graphics in N4, my frame rates are still not as high as they are in N4 using OpenGL. I think I read somewhere though that they are using texture compression which is only available in D3D. To get the same graphics in OpenGL you would need a 128meg card. Brian On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:50:42 -0500, "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (34 lines)

>Once that support is added in (I'll assume you guys will pull it off), would >we expect the same OpenGL advantage if using nVIDIA hardware as exists in >N4? > >OpenGL certainly runs better and looks better on my GeForce card in N4. I >am not opposed to using D3D for NR2002 if it performs well, just wondering >how changed the new graphics system is... > >Marc > >"Eric Busch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:a397v0$56m$[email hidden]... >> Actually this may not end up being to be the case. While it's true that >> NR2002's OpenGL renderer will ship without support for texture >compression, >> we are hoping get that feature added in a patch. That means a 32MB or >64MB >> card (with texture compression support) would be fine for OpenGL. >> >> - Eric >> >> >> "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:MDB58.21026$[email hidden]... >> > This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: >> > >> > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a >128MB >> > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed to >see >> > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. >> >> >

Brian Oster

"Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Thats a good question. I installed the demo and while the D3D > graphics look way better than the D3D graphics in N4, my frame rates > are still not as high as they are in N4 using OpenGL. I think I read > somewhere though that they are using texture compression which is only > available in D3D. To get the same graphics in OpenGL you would need a > 128meg card. > > Brian

here is a REPOST of a message just a little further back in the thread. Actually this may not end up being to be the case. While it's true that NR2002's OpenGL renderer will ship without support for texture compression, we are hoping get that feature added in a patch. That means a 32MB or 64MB card (with texture compression support) would be fine for OpenGL. - Eric

"Scott B. Husted" wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: > > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a 128MB > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed to see > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. > > - Eric > > "STXRacing�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > So... you'd say that if you could get a 128mb card instead of 64mb, the > > performance would be better? > > Scott > PA-Scott

Madness, utter madness, I'll spare you all the rest of the rant Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke" --Groucho Marx--

A 128mb card? Holy freakin christ! And aren't we lucky that ATI and nVidia are just now hitting the shelves with 128mb cards! In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> "Scott B. Husted" wrote: > > > > This is from Eric Busch over on the mhogaming newsgroup: > > > > While there's not really going to be any performance differences, a 128MB > > card would be preferred if you want to use OpenGL and be guaranteed to see > > all of the textures at their highest MIP levels. > > > > - Eric > > > > "STXRacing�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > So... you'd say that if you could get a 128mb card instead of 64mb, the > > > performance would be better? > > > > Scott > > PA-Scott > > Madness, utter madness, I'll spare you all the rest of the rant >

-- ========================================================= Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity" http://www.paddedwall.org/john DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends http://www.paddedwall.org/demons DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development) http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2 Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting) http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

Out of the box you should see relative performances similar to that of N4, so if OpenGL was faster for you in N4 it should be faster for you in NR2002 as well. The drawback will be that at least initially OpenGL will require approximately 4 times the amount of texture memory as D3D to maintain the same texture quality. Hopefully texture compression for OpenGL will make it into a patch, and that will no longer be an issue. - Eric "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Pxe68.30797$[email hidden]... > Once that support is added in (I'll assume you guys will pull it off),would > we expect the same OpenGL advantage if using nVIDIA hardware as existsin > N4? > > OpenGL certainly runs better and looks better on my GeForce card inN4. I > am not opposed to using D3D for NR2002 if it performs well, justwondering > how changed the new graphics system is...

John Simmons wrote: > > A 128mb card? Holy freakin christ! > > And aren't we lucky that ATI and nVidia are just now hitting the shelves > with 128mb cards! Jippi Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke" --Groucho Marx--

Once texture compression is supported in the OpenGL renderer you should be able to get away with a 32MB card, though a 64MB card would still be preferred if you want to run with a full field at high resolutions such as 1600x1200 or in 32-bit color. - Eric "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > A 128mb card? Holy freakin christ! > > And aren't we lucky that ATI and nVidia are just now hitting theshelves > with 128mb cards!

Which 3d renderer is more efficient/faster/better at text compression - D3D or OpenGL? BTW, I'm glad my wife didn't see this as I read it. I've almost got her convinced that I need to upgrade my video card - again!. In article <a3k80e$fh7$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Once texture compression is supported in the OpenGL renderer you should > be able to get away with a 32MB card, though a 64MB card would still be > preferred if you want to run with a full field at high resolutions such > as 1600x1200 or in 32-bit color. > > - Eric > > > "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > A 128mb card? Holy freakin christ! > > > > And aren't we lucky that ATI and nVidia are just now hitting the > shelves > > with 128mb cards! > > >

-- ========================================================= Redneck Techno-Biker & "programming deity" http://www.paddedwall.org/john DeMONS/1 for Nascar Racing 3 & Nascar Legends http://www.paddedwall.org/demons DeMONS/2 for Nascar Racing 4 (in development) http://www.paddedwall.org/demons2 Barbarian Diecast Collector (460+ cars and counting) http://www.paddedwall.org/diecast If you want to send me email, go to the first URL shown above & click "Send Me Mail" in the contents frame. =========================================================

Performance isn't the issue, the amount of texture memory required is all that's really affected. - Eric "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Which 3d renderer is more efficient/faster/better at textcompression - > D3D or OpenGL?