NH: 800x600 ??

Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than 800x600 res.? PII 350 Voodoo Banshee 16mb Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine, whats up?

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:47:50 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than 800x600 >res.? > >PII 350 >Voodoo Banshee 16mb > >Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine, whats >up?

Ned more than 16mb on the video card. -- Nos

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:47:50 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > >Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than 800x600 > >res.? > > > >PII 350 > >Voodoo Banshee 16mb > > > >Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine, whats > >up? > > Ned more than 16mb on the video card.

What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? Hell, that settles it, I'm waiting for N4.

That's all the polys & textures your CPU & video card are able to do in Heat. Until the Voodoo 5's, you can't go over 800x600. "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8n9pdj$tul$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than 800x600 > res.? > > PII 350 > Voodoo Banshee 16mb > > Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine, whats > up? > >

Come on, F12K is a performance pig born from a sloppy engine called SCGT. NH runs brilliantly on my system and will outperform F12K visually on any system. SCGT still runs surprisingly slow on my PIII 600e @ 672 with 128MB ram and a V5. -- Joe Marques Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8n9t01$v8t$[email hidden]... > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:47:50 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > > >Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than 800x600 > > >res.? > > > > > >PII 350 > > >Voodoo Banshee 16mb > > > > > >Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine, whats > > >up? > > > > Ned more than 16mb on the video card. > > What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? > Hell, that settles it, I'm waiting for N4. > >

>What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? I'm able to run in 1024x800 with my 16mb TNT card. Racer X Veteran Sim Racer #4 Corvette C5-R in the GTIC #24 Monte Carlo in the DORL Victory Lane- http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:48:52 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> ><[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:47:50 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >> >> >Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than 800x600 >> >res.? >> > >> >PII 350 >> >Voodoo Banshee 16mb >> > >> >Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine, whats >> >up? >> >> Ned more than 16mb on the video card. > >What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? >Hell, that settles it, I'm waiting for N4.

I wouldnt be surprised of 16mb is not enough for N4. Get your wallet ready. :)

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:48:52 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? >Hell, that settles it, I'm waiting for N4. > > Guess not. Try changing to options.cfg to a higher video_mode number and see if it gives you a higher choice. Looks fine at 800x600 anyway. -- Nos

800x600 looks great anyway....and banshee aint exactly cutting edge anymore :/ Ash "Ed Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V2%l5.27218$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

| That's all the polys & textures your CPU & video card are able to do in | Heat. Until the Voodoo 5's, you can't go over 800x600. | | | "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message | news:8n9pdj$tul$[email hidden]... | > Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than

800x600 | > res.? | > | > PII 350 | > Voodoo Banshee 16mb | > | > Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine,whats | > up? | > | > | |

Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ta%l5.132871$[email hidden]... > Come on, F12K is a performance pig born from a sloppy engine called SCGT. > NH runs brilliantly on my system and will outperform F12K visually on any > system. SCGT still runs surprisingly slow on my PIII 600e @ 672 with128MB > ram and a V5. > I don't know where your all coming up with this about F12K from. It slows at the start of a race but is perfect after that. And like I said 64mb ram, and 350mhz is my machine, nothing special. But what's with NH? At least other sims give the option of higher resolutions even if the computer isn't fast enough to give a good performance on it. And judging by how it runs in 800x600 it should be hunky dory in 1024x768.

Skotty Flynn <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:48:52 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > ><[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:47:50 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > >> > >> >Eh, its all very nice but why can't I run it anything higher than

800x600 > >> >res.? > >> > > >> >PII 350 > >> >Voodoo Banshee 16mb > >> > > >> >Hell, I was even able to give F1 2000 a decent run on this machine,whats

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> >up? > >> > >> Ned more than 16mb on the video card. > > > >What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? > >Hell, that settles it, I'm waiting for N4. > > I wouldnt be surprised of 16mb is not enough for N4. > Get your wallet ready. :)

I hope your joking! Go into town and you'll see they're still selling most PC's with a damn 4mb card. 8mb for the high-tech PC's and A 12mb if its a supersonic one. How can't 16m be enough to run a sim....what's so special about NH? I paid enough to get the bloody 16mb card installed and every other sims uses it. Why wont NH?

Ashley McConnell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nben4$6rv$[email hidden]... > 800x600 looks great anyway....and banshee aint exactly cutting edgeanymore > :/ > Jasas.... thistime last year it was as good as any other, what can i do now? Get 7 voodoo 5's, take off the case of my PC and stick it in a wind tunnel to cool it down just to get a measly 1024x768? Like I said, Even F12K runs reasonably ok on my spec....whats going on all of a sudden?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:27:28 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >And like I said 64mb ram, >and 350mhz is my machine, nothing special. Get real. I have a P3 800 Voodoo5 and 256mb of ram and while I like F12K (except the AI) I think it runs poorly frame rate wise especially considering the graphics quality. I am mainly a flight-simmer and we have a saying, "frame rate is king". -- Nos

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:31:11 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >How can't 16m be enough to run a sim....what's so special about NH? I paid >enough to get the bloody 16mb card installed and every other sims uses it. >Why wont NH? > > You can run the sim fine. Just not above 800x600. What's the big deal about that? -- Nos

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:27:28 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > >And like I said 64mb ram, > >and 350mhz is my machine, nothing special. > > Get real. I have a P3 800 Voodoo5 and 256mb of ram and while I like > F12K (except the AI) I think it runs poorly frame rate wise especially > considering the graphics quality. I am mainly a flight-simmer and we > have a saying, "frame rate is king".

Well....I can't deny that F12K is murder on the computer but I find that once the first lap is over and there are only 1 or 2 cars around you (if any) F12K is very drivable on this PC. Its not perfect but very drivable. Thats why I find it hard to believe that people with machines with twice the spec I have can't run it.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:31:11 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > >How can't 16m be enough to run a sim....what's so special about NH? Ipaid > >enough to get the bloody 16mb card installed and every other sims usesit. > >Why wont NH? > > > > > > You can run the sim fine. Just not above 800x600. What's the big deal > about that? hehe, well basically it looks horrible :-) Ok, It actually looks very good, the graphics look very detailed and all but hey are very "liney". You can see all the jagged lines separating everything. If my machine can handle a higher res. then why do I need to upgrade? Ok, this isn't just about NH really. I've found problems with GP3 too. It won't show the wet reflections with my current drivers (3dfx). Yet when I install other drivers (creative's) the reflections are there but the tracks appear corrupted. It can do reflections but itjsut won't is the "simpletons" way of putting it. Now, I know it was just a joke about things to come but it suggests that this will be the norm soon. That I won't be able to use my PC to do what it is capable of. This upgrade lark is getting out of hand now. I don't mind upgrading so much if my PC is outdated but when I have to upgrade because programmers just won't use my PC to its capability it goes too far. Oh heck, never mind me, I'm just having my daily rant... I'm probably getting on everyone's nerves now:-)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:05:59 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Well....I can't deny that F12K is murder on the computer but I find that >once the first lap is over and there are only 1 or 2 cars around you (if >any) F12K is very drivable on this PC. Its not perfect but very drivable. >Thats why I find it hard to believe that people with machines with twice the >spec I have can't run it. Yes, it's drivable (barely) and I have defended it in the past. But, after seeing how smoothly games like Nascar Heat and GP3 run I think they could have done a much better job of F12K. I expect that EA forced it out the door too soon to meet the start of the F1 2000 season and it never got properly optimized in many areas. I see the PS2 version is coming out soon and it looks very nice graphically, but I bet it runs great on a $250.00 Playstation 2 compoared to my $3000.00 PC. Just doesn't make sense and it's just not the way things should/have to be. -- Nos

Target 12 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >What? Your joking right? 16 ain't enough? > > I'm able to run in 1024x800 with my 16mb TNT card. > Racer X > Veteran Sim Racer > #4 Corvette C5-R in the GTIC > #24 Monte Carlo in the DORL > Victory Lane- > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1423/ >

It runs at 1024x768 on my lowly PIII-500 notebook with an 8Mb Savage mobile. It's not spectacular, mind you, as the benchmark gives me about 24 with all details, all effects and full view distance. Maybe the AGP helps? I also think it's a nice looking graphics engine, I still love the "suspension view", and hopefully MGI has something else up their sleeves to exploit this nice engine. Stephen

I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17 fps in F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid level graphics using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The graphics engine is inefficient crap. -- Joe Marques Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nc7qi$ops$[email hidden]... > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:27:28 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > > > > > >And like I said 64mb ram, > > >and 350mhz is my machine, nothing special. > > > > Get real. I have a P3 800 Voodoo5 and 256mb of ram and while I like > > F12K (except the AI) I think it runs poorly frame rate wise especially > > considering the graphics quality. I am mainly a flight-simmer and we > > have a saying, "frame rate is king". > > Well....I can't deny that F12K is murder on the computer but I find that > once the first lap is over and there are only 1 or 2 cars around you (if > any) F12K is very drivable on this PC. Its not perfect but very drivable. > Thats why I find it hard to believe that people with machines with twice the > spec I have can't run it. > > >

NOMAIL wrote: >I am mainly a flight-simmer and we >have a saying, "frame rate is king". That would be Andy Hollis of Spectrum Holobyte/Microprose fame. Later, Rick

Scroll down the NG a few days GraDee and you can find detailed info from Ed Martin as to why we can't run higher res using our Voodoo's (Pre V5). Look for a thread called "Nacar Heat and V3 3000 800x600 is all you can get??" Hell I just upgraded my Banshee to a V3-3K a few weeks back. But I'm happy anyway as I have a heck of a time reading the screen info at higher res than 800x600. Dam getting old sux :-) Mitch "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nbuun$lg6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Ashley McConnell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nben4$6rv$[email hidden]... > > 800x600 looks great anyway....and banshee aint exactly cutting edge > anymore > > :/ > > > > Jasas.... thistime last year it was as good as any other, > > what can i do now? > > Get 7 voodoo 5's, take off the case of my PC and stick it in a wind tunnel > to cool it down just to get a measly 1024x768? > > Like I said, Even F12K runs reasonably ok on my spec....whats going on all > of a sudden? > > >

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 03:31:27 GMT, [email hidden] (Rick E.) thus spoke: >That would be Andy Hollis of Spectrum Holobyte/Microprose fame. > >Later, >Rick Yes, I think it was him who first said that. Too bad he didn't tell the guys who did JF18 that though. -- Nos

Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... > I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17 fpsin > F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid level graphics > using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The graphics > engine is inefficient crap. > Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye can not tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic.

Mitch Alatorre <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Atom5.131$[email hidden]... > Scroll down the NG a few days GraDee and you can find detailed info fromEd > Martin as to why we can't run higher res using our Voodoo's (Pre V5).Look > for a thread called "Nacar Heat and V3 3000 800x600 is all you can get??" > Hell I just upgraded my Banshee to a V3-3K a few weeks back. But I'mhappy > anyway as I have a heck of a time reading the screen info at higher resthan > 800x600. Dam getting old sux :-) > ok, thanks for that. It's still a shame though, If its capable of running a higher res it should at least give you the option :-(

BS "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]... > > Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... > > I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17fps > in > > F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid levelgraphics > > using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The graphics > > engine is inefficient crap. > > > > Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye cannot > tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very > difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. > The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic. > >

rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:15:42 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The Human eye can not > >tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very > >difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. > > Incorrect. This is a usenet legend that pops up every few months. > > Try this. Set your monitor to refresh at 60HZ and then set > it at 75HZ. See if you can tell the difference.. > > Of course, you are the guy who thinks F1-2000 runs great on > his PII-350 with 64mb. > > LOL

Its fact. Just get your fps to 25, you can't tell if it goes higher. I'll believe this until,I see some proof otherwise and I haven't yet. The only reason you might want 36fps is so that when you are confronted with the scenario of lots of cars around you the frame rate will not drop below 20-25. If you settle for 25 in the first place and then try driving with cars around you it can drop to 10-15 depending on the sim. And I didn't say F12K runs great. It runs "fine". Not perfect but once the first lap scramble is over it works just fine. I can't understand why the game doesn't run smoothly on a PIII 800, 128MB, and 32 MB gfx card.....thats over twice my spec! And lots of people have this and more.

Wayne Bradley <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nejg7$dba$[email hidden]... > BS well as the saying goes Wayne, "Prove me wrong".

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]... > > > > Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... > > > I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17 > fps > > in > > > F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid level > graphics > > > using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The

graphics

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > engine is inefficient crap. > > > > > > > Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye can > not > > tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very > > difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. > > The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic. > > > > > >

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:31:11 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> I wouldnt be surprised of 16mb is not enough for N4. >> Get your wallet ready. :) > >I hope your joking! Im not. I expect a 16mb card will get low resolutions for N4 and for the higher resolutions it will require a more powerful card. I am just speculating though. >Go into town and you'll see they're still selling most PC's with a damn 4mb >card. 8mb for the high-tech PC's and A 12mb if its a supersonic one. They sell PC's with shit cards. Doesnt surprise me a bit. But it also depends on "where" and "whom" you are purchasing the PC from. > >How can't 16m be enough to run a sim....what's so special about NH? I paid >enough to get the bloody 16mb card installed and every other sims uses it. >Why wont NH? Maybe cause Nascar Heat is pushing these cards more so than other sims? I dont know the exact details, but it has been explained in other newsgroups why Nascar Heat requires more "card" memory than most sims. Someone else can explain it. :) But, as cards get more powerful, the game developers push their games to use more of the cards resources. Such has been going on for a long time. You dont expect your 16mb card to run games forever do you? :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Skotty Flynn "skotty20" Nascar-Racing-Sims.Com: http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com The Ultimate Sim Racing Directory: http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com/directory/

In article <8ngqtf$144$[email hidden]>, Toni Lassila <[email hidden]> writes: >On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:50:39 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >>well as the saying goes Wayne, "Prove me wrong". > >The mere fact that _you_ wrote it proves it wrong. Ouch... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +51.31 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

This comes up all the time. A very simple example that most people can relate to is watching current sports coverage when they use a high-shutter-speed video camera to film track and field, baseball etc. to enable ultra-slow-motion replays. Even when played at regular speed, your eye tells you that there is something "funny" about the images recorded using a 1/1000th shutter. The motion-blur inherent in a normal film or video camera tends to smooth out those frames. I will agree that 80fps is a bit silly, but I know that my control in driving games goes up as the frame rate goes from 25 to 35. Stephen GraDee <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nf2av$nus$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Wayne Bradley <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nejg7$dba$[email hidden]... > > BS > > well as the saying goes Wayne, "Prove me wrong". > > > > > "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... > > > > I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get

17

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > fps > > > in > > > > F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid level > > graphics > > > > using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The > graphics > > > > engine is inefficient crap. > > > > > > > > > > Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye

can > > not > > > tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds itvery

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. > > > The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic. > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]>, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... >> I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17 fps >in >> F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid level graphics >> using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The graphics >> engine is inefficient crap. >> > >Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye can not >tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very >difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. >The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic.

Here we go again... :( Some people (including me) can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 36 FPS. Either we're just gifted, or that stat is just wrong... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +51.31 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (GraDee) wrote: > Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye > can not tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very > difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. ROFL! The old jokes are the best. Andrew McP

LOL Marko EldredP <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]>, "GraDee" <[email hidden]>writes: > > >Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... > >> I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17fps > >in > >> F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid levelgraphics > >> using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The graphics > >> engine is inefficient crap. > >> > > > >Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye cannot

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very > >difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. > >The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic. > > Here we go again... :( > > Some people (including me) can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 36

FPS.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Either we're just gifted, or that stat is just wrong... > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +51.31 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:50:39 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: >well as the saying goes Wayne, "Prove me wrong". The mere fact that _you_ wrote it proves it wrong.

Toni Lassila <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ngqtf$144$[email hidden]... > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:50:39 +0100, "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >well as the saying goes Wayne, "Prove me wrong". > > The mere fact that _you_ wrote it proves it wrong. Toni, really, I've unsubscribe form RASF1 to get away from that crap...don't do it here too.

I know that I can see a difference between mid 20's fps and mid 30's fps. I think anything above 40 looks pretty much the same although if I saw a solid 60 fps followed by mid to low 30's I might see the difference. The reason I know I've seen a difference is testing GPL. On my old system I got a consistent mid 20's when I really pumped up the graphics and it just looked choppy to me since I was used to 36 fps when I ran it with less detail. Mind you this was solid mid 20's anyone can see a choppy sudden drop in fps. I'd love to take a test measuring my ability to see different framerates, I feel pretty confident I can tell them apart. -- Joe Marques Please remove "NO SPAM" to e-mail me. "GraDee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nei7b$hoh$[email hidden]... > > Joe Marques <Joe"NO_SPAM"[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:R6lm5.1007$[email hidden]... > > I should have mentioned my actual fps. Using FRAPS I can only get 17 fps > in > > F12K at the beginning and low 20's during the race with mid level graphics > > using 800x600. This on my PIII @ 672, V5 and 128 MB Ram. The graphics > > engine is inefficient crap. > > > > Well I think this warrants some scientific facts here. The Human eye can not > tell the difference of anything of 25fps or above. And it finds it very > difficult to notice much difference above 20fps. > The benchmark of 36fps is unrealistic. > >