On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:40:59 GMT, [email hidden] (Joe62)
wrote:
>Just so you know, that is not a "lower end system". It's entry level
>if you are buying your computer TODAY. But I'd bet the majority of
>gamers are still running something slower, and of course only a tiny
>hardcore minority have faster systems.
I'm with Joe on this one.
I have a P2/400, with 128 meg of RAM and a TNT2. There are very few
games I can't run with all graphics options on at 800x600, or at
1024x768 with very resource intensive fluff like shadows and lighting
switched off.
I'm very happy with the machine, and I'll upgrade it when I really
start feeling the pinch from a larger percentage of software.
I see resolutions above 800x600 as something for people that are on
the cutting edge processor-wise since 3D cards have really taken the
edge off of needing to run stuff at the highest resolution it supports
(personal opinion).
From what I've read about F1 2000, it sure sounds like its a hog for
software optimization reasons, not lacking hardware.
Tim
I have just finished playing f1 2000 and have been on it for the last 3
hours. I must admit, i really like this game but can see the reasons why
some gripe of some of the issues. My first look at the in game graphics and
i thought, SHIT! this is no good. I then went back to the graphics settings
and tweeked around with them for a while and put everything on full option
and went back into the game and my whole impression changed. This is one
fantastic looking racer, the***pit view i believe is one of the best out
there, and wipes the floor with mgprs2***pit view. The tracks feel more
like tracks instead of cartoon drawn raceways and the elevations all appear
to be spot on. I then started to race around the track and noticed that the
frame rate took a bit of hit and i was not impressed with what i saw, the
game became unplayable. So after some more graphical changes, and having
all the car detail on but mirrors off and the draw distance at medium, the
frame rate improved out of sight. I must say that i havent really had time
yet to have a full race, but my pc seemed to handle all cars in the race and
about 12 viewable. All this on a celery 450 and 64mb ram and voodoo 2. So
for all you people out there putting off buying the game because of system
requirments, think again. You can definately have an enjoyable experience
with this game on a lower end system and it still looks great.
have you found a way to save a game yet?
Mike
Jaye wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)
> I have just finished playing f1 2000 and have been on it for the last 3 > hours. I must admit, i really like this game but can see the reasons why > some gripe of some of the issues. My first look at the in game graphics and > i thought, SHIT! this is no good. I then went back to the graphics settings > and tweeked around with them for a while and put everything on full option > and went back into the game and my whole impression changed. This is one > fantastic looking racer, the cockpit view i believe is one of the best out > there, and wipes the floor with mgprs2 cockpit view. The tracks feel more > like tracks instead of cartoon drawn raceways and the elevations all appear > to be spot on. I then started to race around the track and noticed that the > frame rate took a bit of hit and i was not impressed with what i saw, the > game became unplayable. So after some more graphical changes, and having > all the car detail on but mirrors off and the draw distance at medium, the > frame rate improved out of sight. I must say that i havent really had time > yet to have a full race, but my pc seemed to handle all cars in the race and > about 12 viewable. All this on a celery 450 and 64mb ram and voodoo 2. So > for all you people out there putting off buying the game because of system > requirments, think again. You can definately have an enjoyable experience > with this game on a lower end system and it still looks great."Jaye" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>All this on a celery 450 and 64mb ram and voodoo 2. So
>for all you people out there putting off buying the game because of system
>requirments, think again. You can definately have an enjoyable experience
>with this game on a lower end system and it still looks great.
Just so you know, that is not a "lower end system". It's entry level
if you are buying your computer TODAY. But I'd bet the majority of
gamers are still running something slower, and of course only a tiny
hardcore minority have faster systems.
Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment
Actually the 450 is a low end for new systems. Especially with
700's coming out now. However the box claims that the 450 is
the recommended machine. I can't agree with that. You need the
fastest CPU you can afford.
--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.
cisko [AT] ix [DOT] netcom [DOT] com
Joe62 <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "Jaye" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >All this on a celery 450 and 64mb ram and voodoo 2. So
> >for all you people out there putting off buying the game because of
system
> >requirments, think again. You can definately have an enjoyable
experience
> >with this game on a lower end system and it still looks great.
>
> Just so you know, that is not a "lower end system". It's entry level
> if you are buying your computer TODAY. But I'd bet the majority of
> gamers are still running something slower, and of course only a tiny
> hardcore minority have faster systems.
>
> Joe McGinn
> _____________________
> Radical Entertainment
"Greg Cisko" <no.spam.email.for.me> wrote:
>Actually the 450 is a low end for new systems. Especially with
>700's coming out now.
For a serious gamer yes ... but the general public, the casual gamer
buys at the low end.
Joe McGinn
_____________________
Radical Entertainment
