Re: F12000 flat out POOR programing!

The problem is not with the game or Image Space. The problem is EA. They obviously pressured the developers to release the game before it was ready and we can all see the result. There are many bugs (AI being the obvious one) and the graphics are nowhere near optimized. Hopefully Image Space are working on a patch as we speak =) ...Colin Sal V. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 witha > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > slower results. > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized totake > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > Sal V. > >

Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 with a ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even slower results. This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to take advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. Sal V.

Try tweaking the graphics options a bit more. Runs at about 25fps on my Athlon 750 with V3 3000 @1024 in races with 22 cars. As has been said before many times, it seems that Geforce and TNT cards suffer more than Voodoo on F12K for reasons yet unknown. Iain Sal V. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 witha > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > slower results. > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized totake > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > Sal V. > >

I just upgraded my P3 - 450 mhz, 64 mb RAM with a Voodoo3 3000 @ 175 mhz to a P3 - 600 with 128 mb RAM and F1 2000 really gained lotsa FPS... With the 450 mhz and 64 mb RAM it all turned into a freaking slide show when I started at the back of the grid... Yesterday evening I tried f1 2000 for the first time on the upgraded machine and it runs great.. I started at the back of the grid at the Nurburgring and with 22 cars, of which 10 visible it ran really smooth, no hickups at all.... The GeForce's don't seem to be handling the game to well... Question will or this is due to bad game programming or due to bad GeForce drivers.... -- Sjon "Sal V." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 witha > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > slower results. > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized totake > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > Sal V. > >

There's never been any doubt in my mind that this game was rushed out by EA before Image Space Incorporated had finished optimizing their code, rather like Ultima 9. Just confirms what most of us already knew about EA. But anyway, have you tried using the windowed mode fix? Edit config.ini in your main F1 2000 folder and change WindowedMode=0 to 1. This can give a big performance boost (although it shouldn't do really).

Iain, I think you missed the point. With Sal's (and yours) machinery one would _think_ that ANY sim could be run with max. details. And please don't give me that crap about F1 2000 being released for future HW. Besides, 25 fps is not that much. To me, it's unacceptably slow. Hena Iain Mackenzie wrote in message ...

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Try tweaking the graphics options a bit more. Runs at about 25fps on my >Athlon 750 with V3 3000 @1024 in races with 22 cars. As has been said >before many times, it seems that Geforce and TNT cards suffer more than >Voodoo on F12K for reasons yet unknown. >Iain > >Sal V. <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... >> Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run >> well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800

with

Quoted text (14 lines)

>a >> ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, >> F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even >> slower results. >> >> This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to >take >> advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. >> >> Sal V. >> >> > >

"Hena H�kk�nen" <[email hidden]> kirjoitti viestiss� news:8fe3cs$hkr$[email hidden]... > Iain, > > I think you missed the point. With Sal's (and yours) machinery one would > _think_ that ANY sim could be run with max. details. And please don't give > me that crap about F1 2000 being released for future HW. Besides, 25 fpsis > not that much. To me, it's unacceptably slow. > > Hena >I think same, 25 is not enough FPS with F1 sim, I like F1 2000 very much but i must race only with 5 AI drivers but i want full grid. -Jani Kankaanp��-

Besides the game itself sucks this ain't no sim! -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Hena H�kk�nen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8fe3cs$hkr$[email hidden]... > Iain, > > I think you missed the point. With Sal's (and yours) machinery one would > _think_ that ANY sim could be run with max. details. And please don't give > me that crap about F1 2000 being released for future HW. Besides, 25 fps is > not that much. To me, it's unacceptably slow. > > Hena > > Iain Mackenzie wrote in message ... > >Try tweaking the graphics options a bit more. Runs at about 25fps on my > >Athlon 750 with V3 3000 @1024 in races with 22 cars. As has been said > >before many times, it seems that Geforce and TNT cards suffer more than > >Voodoo on F12K for reasons yet unknown. > >Iain > > > >Sal V. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > >> Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > >> well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 > with > >a > >> ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > >> F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > >> slower results. > >> > >> This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to > >take > >> advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > >> > >> Sal V. > >> > >> > > > > > >

I admire your patience --- I'd chuck F1 2000 straight in the bin along with anything with "Need For Speed" in the title. Geezz, is it really worth gutting your PC and emptying your bank account just to see the adverts on the side of Schumacher's car? GP 2 runs fine on my P 2 -350 thank you very much, I'll bet the AI of the other cars is better too. SCGT - only good thing to come out of EA. Sal V. wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 with a > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > slower results. > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to take > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > Sal V.

-- Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York. Email Disclaimer ---------------------- The information in this email is confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. The views expressed in this email are those of the author, and should not be attributed to the University of York, BAE SYSTEMS or any other party.

Then what exactly does qualify as a sim for you? -Gregor Slick wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Besides the game itself sucks this ain't no sim! > > -- > Oli > BeoRocket Racing > http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ >

Something that represents what it simulates as real as possible! Which in this case EA Sports failed to do (not saying that it can't be fun to play). I guess it pisses me off big time when a "game" is not completed and when all little things are not taken care off! The frame rate for instance! I also think that all other (serious) F1 simulators have more value as a sim! therefore I think more fun to play! I'm not going to start comparing it to GPL since I also don't think it's useful to go down the road and keep bitchin' how no "sim" comes close to GPL! No! Specially a F1 sim that simulates a modern single seater! But all things need to be in place for a game to satisfy me! And I think I can consider my self as a sim addict? I had much fun with GP2, spent so much time with F1RS (have bought a wheel coz of it), Nascar series from Pappy,GPL, and most recently SBK 2K. I hope this choice doesn't discredit me as a "sim racer", but F1 2000 gets a mild 5 out of 10 from me ! -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Gregor Veble" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Then what exactly does qualify as a sim for you? > > -Gregor > > Slick wrote: > > > > Besides the game itself sucks this ain't no sim! > > > > -- > > Oli > > BeoRocket Racing > > http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ > >

Believe me SBK is worth buying and playing! and it came outa EA! Rest of their stuff is garbage material I agree... -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ "Steven Crook-Dawkins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I admire your patience --- I'd chuck F1 2000 straight in the bin along with > anything with "Need For Speed" in the title. > > Geezz, is it really worth > gutting your PC and emptying your bank account just to see the adverts > on the side of Schumacher's car? GP 2 runs fine on my P 2 -350 thank > you very much, I'll bet the AI of the other cars is better too. > > SCGT - only good thing to come out of EA. > > Sal V. wrote:

On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:08:59 GMT, "Colin Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Not *quite* true about SCGT being the only one....but near enough! > >I know this is an old argument, but I find it amazing that the same company >(ok, distributor) can put out two games, using the same track, yet make one That's because _they_ _don't_ _make_ _anything_. A giant distributor like EA is most likely to publish a whole load of indifferent balony, and once in a while, a gem or two.

Not *quite* true about SCGT being the only one....but near enough! I know this is an old argument, but I find it amazing that the same company (ok, distributor) can put out two games, using the same track, yet make one of them horrendously wrong. SBK2000, for instance, seems to have the parabolica right, but the F1 2k track has the tiniest of straights halfway round the bend...I've posted before about this, and got some help (thank you all), but I'm very much of the "thanks for the game, but come back when you've fixed it" brigade. Runs like a pig on mine, which is to be expected of my system, but a mate has it, P3 550, all that jazz, and it runs like poop on his too, regardless of 3d card (tried mine and his). A shame... -- Colin Harris ColinHarris in N3/NL http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm ICQ 25485061 Steven Crook-Dawkins <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I admire your patience --- I'd chuck F1 2000 straight in the bin along with > anything with "Need For Speed" in the title. > > Geezz, is it really worth > gutting your PC and emptying your bank account just to see the adverts > on the side of Schumacher's car? GP 2 runs fine on my P 2 -350 thank > you very much, I'll bet the AI of the other cars is better too. > > SCGT - only good thing to come out of EA. > > Sal V. wrote: > > > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 with a > > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > > slower results. > > > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to take > > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > > > Sal V. > > -- > Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York. > > Email Disclaimer > ---------------------- > The information in this email is confidential. > It is intended solely for the addressee. > Access to this email by anyone else is > unauthorised. > > The views expressed in this email are those of > the author, and should not be attributed to the > University of York, BAE SYSTEMS or any > other party. > >

While both SBK2K and F12k are produced by EA, the teams designing, building, and programming them are totally different with probably ZERO interaction. It one thing to say SB2K got it right, but that doesn't mean the ISI team building F12k can use the tracks and blueprints that allowed the SBK team to do their work. dave henrie Colin Harris wrote:

Quoted text (66 lines)

> > Not *quite* true about SCGT being the only one....but near enough! > > I know this is an old argument, but I find it amazing that the same company > (ok, distributor) can put out two games, using the same track, yet make one > of them horrendously wrong. SBK2000, for instance, seems to have the > parabolica right, but the F1 2k track has the tiniest of straights halfway > round the bend...I've posted before about this, and got some help (thank you > all), but I'm very much of the "thanks for the game, but come back when > you've fixed it" brigade. Runs like a pig on mine, which is to be expected > of my system, but a mate has it, P3 550, all that jazz, and it runs like > poop on his too, regardless of 3d card (tried mine and his). > A shame... > > -- > > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL > > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > ICQ 25485061 > > Steven Crook-Dawkins <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I admire your patience --- I'd chuck F1 2000 straight in the bin along > with > > anything with "Need For Speed" in the title. > > > > Geezz, is it really worth > > gutting your PC and emptying your bank account just to see the adverts > > on the side of Schumacher's car? GP 2 runs fine on my P 2 -350 thank > > you very much, I'll bet the AI of the other cars is better too. > > > > SCGT - only good thing to come out of EA. > > > > Sal V. wrote: > > > > > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > > > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 > with a > > > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > > > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > > > slower results. > > > > > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to > take > > > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > > > > > Sal V. > > > > -- > > Steven Crook-Dawkins - Research Assistant - University of York. > > > > Email Disclaimer > > ---------------------- > > The information in this email is confidential. > > It is intended solely for the addressee. > > Access to this email by anyone else is > > unauthorised. > > > > The views expressed in this email are those of > > the author, and should not be attributed to the > > University of York, BAE SYSTEMS or any > > other party. > > > >

I stated that 1024x768 is a decent resolution which it is, I also feel that 800x600 is decent but with a 19" monitor it looks very "blocky". The game however runs much better @ 800x600 so maybe I'll just have to get used to it. It's just that the AI cars are killing the framerate regardless of the resolution. Sal V. "Sal V." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 witha > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > slower results. > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized totake > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > Sal V. > >

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Try tweaking the graphics options a bit more. Runs at about 25fps on my > Athlon 750 with V3 3000 @1024 in races with 22 cars. And you find that OK ??? Racing simulations such as SBK 2000 have better detail and probably similar physics while giving you a great framerate. ISI should reconsider their game engine I say. The potential is there, but the results aren't. And I also dislike the colour palette <g> :) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

I agree totally. I'm amazed that more people haven't noticed the colour scheme. It's just plain wrong. Monaco looks nothing like it does in real life, or on the F1 tv coverage. I can't believe it when reviews say this game has the best graphics of any racing game so far. It just looks a mess to me. :) Simon.

"Colin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8fegs8$ae2$[email hidden]... > The problem is not with the game or Image Space. > The problem is EA. > They obviously pressured the developers to release the game before it was > ready and we can all see the result. > There are many bugs (AI being the obvious one) and the graphics arenowhere > near optimized. > Hopefully Image Space are working on a patch as we speak =) Nonesense, the problem isn't with F12K at all, but with ISI's engine, going all the way back to SCGT which has the same problems. ISI's engine is a pig, it has always been a pig. It remains to be a pig. The only way any ISI product will EVER be any good is if they start from scratch. Better yet, scratch ISI and make the SBK developers responsible for all racing sims under the EA label. The whole idea that two developers working under the same corporate umbrella can't cooperate is also nonsense, and if this is the way it really is at EA then EA itself has some major internal problems. Kevin F. Gavitt > ...Colin > > Sal V. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > > Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't run > > well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800with

Quoted text (14 lines)

> a > > ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through the roof, > > F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E with even > > slower results. > > > > This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to > take > > advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > > > > Sal V. > > > > > >

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Better yet, scratch ISI and make the SBK developers responsible for all > racing sims under the EA label. > > The whole idea that two developers working under the same corporate umbrella > can't cooperate is also nonsense, and if this is the way it really is at EA > then EA itself has some major internal problems. > > Kevin F. Gavitt > > ...Colin >

I agree the SCGT engine is a sluggo. But just because EA has deals with the different programmers, no way they can easily work together. Lets take Sierra Papyrus for example. Papyrus is based in Boston. Most of Sierra's other holdings are located in California, Portland Oregon, and the Seattle area. Dynamix in Portland has some outstanding 3d and online programmers...any chance what they already had done could be used with a Papyrus program? ONLY if every shred of Papy code was completely thrown away. Each programmer does things differently, and code for one is entirely different than for other companies. Look how long it took to convert a completed Toca2 track to SCGT even though both were created with the same software tools. Now Papy's tracks are 100% different from the Toca/scgt stuff. Even if Sierra/Havas owned Codemasters, there would be no way to use the Codemasters track format without a complete rewrite of the Papy code. How much money do you have in your budget. same goes for ISI and the SBK developers. I'm sure the SBK guys are busy working on another version of their product. How much CASH will EA give'm to go work with ISI. And ISI only had 9 months to get F12k out the door. Heck it takes some programmers that long just to get their offices in order. I got the feeling from forums at gtinsider, that the ISI guys really hadn't finished working on SCGT. They had several 'planned' improvements that never got done because of EA's decision to use them for the F1 product. My 'guess' is that EA bought and distributed SCGT just so they could get somebody working on an F1 program quickly. I'm waiting for F12001 to decide on the merits of the EA F1 line. dave henrie

INCOMING!!!

On Sun, 14 May 2000 19:43:06 +0100 Iain Mackenzie <[email hidden]> wrote: % Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it is a % fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. % Iain % (I await the deluge!) At about 30 fps the human eye "usually" is unable to notice the flicker between frames. However the human eye is capable of detecting the benefits of more than 30 fps.... http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/30v60/30v60p1.htm http://www.firingsquad.com/features/faceoff/6-fps/default.asp http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm http://www.robinsonresearch.com/MOVIES/part_IB.htm from http://www.student.hk-r.se/~pt93mm/thesis/domain_paper.html The qualifier 'Real-time' narrows the domain further. By this term we do not mean to imply that the system will have to deal with hard deadlines that are critical to the functionality of the application. Instead, the term is used to point out that we are talking about animation. This simply means that the frames must be produced at a speed that tricks the human eye to perceive flicker-free, or at least almost flicker-free motion. In practice, 'flicker-free' means 20 - 30 frames per second, "almost flicker-free" might be around 10 frames per second. Occasional frame rate drops to less than 10 frames per second might or might not be acceptable, depending on the application. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it is a fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. Iain (I await the deluge!) Hena H�kk�nen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8fe3cs$hkr$[email hidden]... > Iain, > > I think you missed the point. With Sal's (and yours) machinery one would > _think_ that ANY sim could be run with max. details. And please don't give > me that crap about F1 2000 being released for future HW. Besides, 25 fpsis

Quoted text (14 lines)

> not that much. To me, it's unacceptably slow. > > Hena > > Iain Mackenzie wrote in message ... > >Try tweaking the graphics options a bit more. Runs at about 25fps on my > >Athlon 750 with V3 3000 @1024 in races with 22 cars. As has been said > >before many times, it seems that Geforce and TNT cards suffer more than > >Voodoo on F12K for reasons yet unknown. > >Iain > > > >Sal V. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:%XqS4.183390$[email hidden]... > >> Well I've just done a major computer upgrade and F1-2000 still won't

run > >> well in a decent resolution(1024x768). My new machine is a Athlon-800 > with > >a > >> ELSA GeForce-2 GTS and while all other sims/games went through theroof, > >> F1-2000 still is a DOG! Also tried the GeForce-2 in a PIII650E witheven

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> slower results. > >> > >> This tells me that it's just the program itself not being optimized to > >take > >> advantage of today's hardware. Oh well, maybe next time. > >> > >> Sal V. > >> > >> > > > > > >

On Sun, 14 May 2000 19:43:06 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it is a >fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. >Iain >(I await the deluge!) It's not a fact and I can prove it, but lost the link to the url that does prove it. :-( -- Nos

In article <ZrCT4.1554$[email hidden]>, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it is a >fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. >Iain >(I await the deluge!) INCOMING!!!

Iain Mackenzie wrote in message ... >Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it isa >fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. >Iain >(I await the deluge!) I think Michael covered this in his post. But if you can't tell the difference between 25fps and let's say 35fps you should see your eye doctor. Hena

I didn't say I couldn't tell the difference between 25 and 35 fps - did I? Iain Hena H�kk�nen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8foieo$7h1$[email hidden]... > Iain Mackenzie wrote in message ... > >Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe itis

Quoted text (7 lines)

> a > >fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. > >Iain > >(I await the deluge!) > > I think Michael covered this in his post. But if you can't tell the > difference between 25fps and let's say 35fps you should see your eye

doctor. > > Hena > >

"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote > Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it isa > fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. > Iain BOMBS AWAY! Please search deja.com about this subject. I thought you could do better Iain. Well I ain't surprised from somebody who praise F1 2k ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > I didn't say I couldn't tell the difference between 25 and 35 fps - did I? Maybe not, but you came awfully close with this ... > Movies etc. run at 30fps, so 25 is not far behind, is it? I believe it is a > fact that the human eye cannot detect more than 30 fps. ...but who cares really, the important thing is that the human eye can see frame rates well above 30 :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

> I thought you could do better Iain. Well I ain't surprised from somebody > who praise F1 2k ;) >I know, I'll try to do better next time. I was feeling rather mischevious!! Iain