Re: Getting a good frame rate in F1 2000?

How can this be done? Peter Bergtrom wrote: > You want to double your FPS? Run F12K in a window. > I run virtually maxed in everything and we have precisely the > same systems. > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

You want to double your FPS? Run F12K in a window. I run virtually maxed in everything and we have precisely the same systems. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

There has been alot of discussion since F1 2000 came out about the abysmal frame rates. I don't like F1 2000 at all and as some might have noticed I have been ***ing and moaning about it since it came out. When zI first installed it on my machine (350mhz, Savage 4 32 mb) I used my GPL graphics settings as a referance point. I set resolution to 600x800 and most of the forward textures around maximum and some in the mirrors. This was far too choppy especially witha full field of cars. I then decided to do the same as what I did with SCGT and turn down the graphic textures to medium/low. Still looks reasonable and totally acceptable, the frame rate was still a bit low though. I then dropped the resolution to 640x480. BINGO!! It seemed to run smoothly just about everywhere. Okay not an ideal solution (that would be buying a "Ninja" PC) but a way to make the game playable till it's possible to upgrade. Unfortuanatly I couldn't stand the game for lots of other reasons. It is possible to make the game playable on a modest machine though with some small sacrifices. I'm sure the same will be true for GP3. Chris * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

> When zI first installed it on my machine (350mhz, Savage 4 32 > mb) I used my GPL graphics settings as a referance point. I set > resolution to 600x800 and most of the forward textures around > maximum and some in the mirrors. This was far too choppy > especially witha full field of cars. > I think alot of ppl are making comparisons to GPL here (rightly so), but are neglecting to understand the fundamental sophistication of F12k & two years of technological progress since GPL. Textures in GPL are of a completely different nature. There are far fewer textures, and at lower resolution. GPL textures are also 256 colors (or less). F12k uses full 24 bit color textures, and a boat load of them at higher res. The polygon count in F12k, at even low quality, is still quite a bit more than GPL. At high quality, the number of polygons in a car body easily triple (or more!) the number of polygons in GPL. The shapes required for modern cars dictate this. Its obvious that F12k is meant for the "recommended system", and far above that. Honestly, I don't mind my software built for the future. Dents.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:09:33 GMT, "D. \"Dents\" Hopkins" <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip good points> >Its obvious that F12k is meant for the "recommended system", and far above >that. Honestly, I don't mind my software built for the future. > >Dents. I really can't agree with your last statement. Don't you find it ridiculous that F1 2000 runs so choppy on most of today's machines? Sure, next year most of us will have a pc which can handle F1 2000 perfectly, but then F1 2001 will be released, and we will have to wait another year before the hardware catches up. I rather see software being released aimed at today's hardware... By the way, great job you did with all your F1 2000 enhancements, love the sound pack! Andre

What is the polycount on the cars in F1 2000 ?? Thinking of SCGT when all the prototype cars got maid. Then the fps just dropped like mad, cause the cars had a polycount on about 1000 (500 in the original cars). By looking at the cars in F1 2000, I'd say that their polycount is roughly about 1500 - or am I totally wrong there ?? Just guessing. Borchers "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:09:33 GMT, "D. \"Dents\" Hopkins" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > <snip good points> > > >Its obvious that F12k is meant for the "recommended system", and farabove

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >that. Honestly, I don't mind my software built for the future. > > > >Dents. > > I really can't agree with your last statement. Don't you find it > ridiculous that F1 2000 runs so choppy on most of today's machines? > Sure, next year most of us will have a pc which can handle F1 2000 > perfectly, but then F1 2001 will be released, and we will have to wait > another year before the hardware catches up. > I rather see software being released aimed at today's hardware... > > By the way, great job you did with all your F1 2000 enhancements, love > the sound pack! > > Andre > >

[email hidden] (Andre Warringa) wrote: >I rather see software being released aimed at today's hardware... I agree. In the pre-3D-accelerated days, games that were too resource-hungry were a necessary evil. Now it's just lazy programming. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

Andre Warringa wrote: > > > I really can't agree with your last statement. Don't you find it > ridiculous that F1 2000 runs so choppy on most of today's machines? But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 came out? Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when N2 was new? It is fairly common to have new games outstrip our system's abilities. I think most of us have upgraded to a point(especially compared to pre3dfx systems) that we should be able to run dang near anything, but the fact is...hardware is still way behind what programmers "could" max out and probably will be for a long long time. dave henrie

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Sure, next year most of us will have a pc which can handle F1 2000 > perfectly, but then F1 2001 will be released, and we will have to wait > another year before the hardware catches up. > I rather see software being released aimed at today's hardware... > > By the way, great job you did with all your F1 2000 enhancements, love > the sound pack! > > Andre

Ready? Here goes: Open the F12K folder, open the config file and change 'WindowedMode' to = '1'. Make sure the desktop resolution matches the resolution you want in the game. that's all there is to it. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

I've tried several combos but the game keeps giving a illegal operation error, any ideas? Peter Bergtrom wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Ready? Here goes: > > Open the F12K folder, open the config file and > change 'WindowedMode' to = '1'. > > Make sure the desktop resolution matches the resolution you want > in the game. that's all there is to it. > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

[email hidden] (Peter Bergtrom) wrote in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Ready? Here goes: > >Open the F12K folder, open the config file and >change 'WindowedMode' to = '1'. > >Make sure the desktop resolution matches the resolution you want >in the game. that's all there is to it. >

I'll try that. It seems weird that windowed mode could improve performance though. It should decrease it, I'd think.

"Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 >> came out? > >No one. >I still feel that GP2 was a real rip-off. >Geoff designed a game that would produce very nice screenshots, nothing >more. >Yes its true, the car-physics were very good too at the time, but >graphically GP2 was an example of VERY BAD PROGRAMMING.

Aha, quite some statement. I'm sure you can back this up? Please give me the polycount for GP2 in both resolutions, and also give me the polycount of a software! renderer which beat GP2. >I'm waiting to see what GP3 will be like, but I'm very sceptic. <g> Remco

> But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 > came out? No one. I still feel that GP2 was a real rip-off. Geoff designed a game that would produce very nice screenshots, nothing more. Yes its true, the car-physics were very good too at the time, but graphically GP2 was an example of VERY BAD PROGRAMMING. I'm waiting to see what GP3 will be like, but I'm very sceptic.

Well I was ready, so I changed it to 1, but it didn't change anything noticeable for me. What happens on your pc, you do get a good fps after this change? Andre On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:10:55 -0700, Peter Bergtrom <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Ready? Here goes: > >Open the F12K folder, open the config file and >change 'WindowedMode' to = '1'. > >Make sure the desktop resolution matches the resolution you want >in the game. that's all there is to it. > >* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * >The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:46:29 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Andre Warringa wrote: >> >> >> I really can't agree with your last statement. Don't you find it >> ridiculous that F1 2000 runs so choppy on most of today's machines? > > But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 >came out? Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when >N2 was new? It is fairly common to have new games outstrip our system's >abilities. I think most of us have upgraded to a point(especially >compared to pre3dfx systems) that we should be able to run dang near >anything, but the fact is...hardware is still way behind what >programmers "could" max out and probably will be for a long long time. >dave henrie

Indeed, GP2 was a major bummer too at the time of it's release. 800 x 600 games were allready very common at that time, with a good fps. If I remember correctly I had a Pentium 133 at that time, a quite normal/fast pc at that time. I absolutely couldn't run it in 800 resolution, had to switch back to 600. Add the real time/slowmo problems to that one and there you've got the reason why I never played GP2. What a bummer that was, since I loved GP1. It's ok, very good even, if game programmers allready add graphical options build for tomorrows pc's, but it's ridiculous if a game can't run decent with full ai, in 800 x 600 resolution with normal details like smoke, high-res textures etc all on, on pc's that are standard today. Right now I've got a PIII 500, and with a full grid and details turned down heavily the game still runs choppy in 800 x 600! Simply unacceptable! Please don't tell me it's my system's fault, just count the complains about the choppy fps on most (everybody's?) pc's, that should be enough proof that the engine is simply not good for today's pc's. Andre

Similar specs here, with a V3 3k. I know when I turned EVERYTHING up to full..I thought the system locked up....:) I haven't been able to bog down N3 yet, but I'm pretty sure my system is going to be weak when N4 appears. SCGT ran fine in Medium rez's except at some of the front straights with highly graphic pitlanes. With GPL I haven't been brave enough to see how much detail I could turn up...I 'should' work with that more.... dave henrie Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (39 lines)

> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:46:29 GMT, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Andre Warringa wrote: > >> > >> > >> I really can't agree with your last statement. Don't you find it > >> ridiculous that F1 2000 runs so choppy on most of today's machines? > > > > But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 > >came out? Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when > >N2 was new? It is fairly common to have new games outstrip our system's > >abilities. I think most of us have upgraded to a point(especially > >compared to pre3dfx systems) that we should be able to run dang near > >anything, but the fact is...hardware is still way behind what > >programmers "could" max out and probably will be for a long long time. > >dave henrie > > Indeed, GP2 was a major bummer too at the time of it's release. 800 x > 600 games were allready very common at that time, with a good fps. If > I remember correctly I had a Pentium 133 at that time, a quite > normal/fast pc at that time. I absolutely couldn't run it in 800 > resolution, had to switch back to 600. Add the real time/slowmo > problems to that one and there you've got the reason why I never > played GP2. What a bummer that was, since I loved GP1. > > It's ok, very good even, if game programmers allready add graphical > options build for tomorrows pc's, but it's ridiculous if a game can't > run decent with full ai, in 800 x 600 resolution with normal details > like smoke, high-res textures etc all on, on pc's that are standard > today. > Right now I've got a PIII 500, and with a full grid and details turned > down heavily the game still runs choppy in 800 x 600! > Simply unacceptable! > Please don't tell me it's my system's fault, just count the complains > about the choppy fps on most (everybody's?) pc's, that should be > enough proof that the engine is simply not good for today's pc's. > > Andre

I got a major boost in FPS and so did some of the posters on the 'other' forum. I run at MAX detail, except for mirror detail, while hotlapping and medium detail for racing now on my- relatively- antediluvian system: 350/128/S4. The diffence was immediate and dramatic. In effect, I have a new game that approaches SBK2000 in grafic quality. FWIW, I also changed the system rating in the Config from '2' to '3'. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

Peter Bergtrom wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Ready? Here goes: > > Open the F12K folder, open the config file and > change 'WindowedMode' to = '1'. > > Make sure the desktop resolution matches the resolution you want > in the game. that's all there is to it. > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

Hmmmm......funny thing happened here. In windowed mode, my controller doesn't work. Exited out, undid the windowed mode & did nothing else. Went back in & it's all fine again. Anyone else with a LWFF experience this? -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at: http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun! They'll call you names And spit in your face, But legends never die. --Gene Simmons

Shaun Robinson <[email hidden]> heeft geschreven in bericht: >I've tried several combos but the game keeps giving a illegal operation >error, any ideas? > Same here, after maybe 5 minutes it keeps crashing! My system specs are: P3 500MHz 128 Mbytes V3-3000 Soundblaster Live Win98 btw: when it is working the FPS is *much* better. I'd love to be able to make it work in windowed mode. -------- remove aluminium to email

It crashed once with my system and a couple of times the LWFF didn't respond. I exited and relaunched the program and everything seemed fine. Running in Windows would seem more likely to retard rather than accelerate the frames. You'd think this is one of the things they'll address in the patch. Also, rumor has it that ISI is going to accentuate the FF effects. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

My initial post wasn't meant to be a bitch about F1 2000. I was just trying to point out that an accepatable frame rate was possible on most machines with a little sacrifice. I personally just don't like the game. Polygons & number of colours are very much a secondary concern to me. I'm not going to carry on complaining about F1 2000 as I am too busy with GPL. Chris In article <16WN4.160 $[email hidden]>, "D. \"Dents\" Hopkins" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > >I think alot of ppl are making comparisons to GPL here (rightlyso), but are >neglecting to understand the fundamental sophistication of F12k& two years >of technological progress since GPL. > >Textures in GPL are of a completely different nature. Thereare far fewer >textures, and at lower resolution. GPL textures are also 256colors (or >less). F12k uses full 24 bit color textures, and a boat loadof them at >higher res. > >The polygon count in F12k, at even low quality, is stillquite a bit more >than GPL. At high quality, the number of polygons in a carbody easily >triple (or more!) the number of polygons in GPL. The shapesrequired for >modern cars dictate this. > >Its obvious that F12k is meant for the "recommended system",and far above

Quoted text (7 lines)

>that. Honestly, I don't mind my software built for the future. > >Dents. > > > >

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 >came out? Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when >N2 was new? Apples and oranges ... that was before 3d accelerators. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

Joe62 wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > But Andre...Who could run a full field at 100% cpu occupancy when GP2 > >came out? Could any system push a full field with Hi rez graphics when > >N2 was new? > > Apples and oranges ... that was before 3d accelerators. >

Just goes to show that programmers always push the technology envelope, regardless of the era. Besides which, I surely had a 3d accelerator when N2 came out, as well as most other people did by then. That was a while after the first generation Rendition cards came out. -- Chuck Kandler #70 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 Competitor in the TopGear MGPRS2 league at: http://topgear.dhs.org/ Come on & join the fun! They'll call you names And spit in your face, But legends never die. --Gene Simmons

Chuck Kandler <[email hidden]> wrote: >Just goes to show that programmers always push the technology envelope, >regardless of the era. Just goes to show that there is always poor programming, regardless of the era. Look it's very simple - F12K is the slowest racing game in some time, and it does NOT look better than other games that run much faster (SBK 2000 is just one example). That's not "pushing technology", it's a poorly optimized game. Period. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:04:33 GMT, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >Indeed, GP2 was a major bummer too at the time of it's release. 800 x >600 games were allready very common at that time, with a good fps. If >I remember correctly I had a Pentium 133 at that time, a quite Uhum! Could you list some games that run 800x600 with a P133 with good fps w/out 3D-card support? I do agree it was bad optimizing.

Do you know the code ? Maybe the limiting factor is the physics not the graphics. Just an idea -- Ian Parker == Joe62 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Chuck Kandler <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Just goes to show that programmers always push the technology envelope, > >regardless of the era. > > Just goes to show that there is always poor programming, regardless of > the era. Look it's very simple - F12K is the slowest racing game in > some time, and it does NOT look better than other games that run much > faster (SBK 2000 is just one example). That's not "pushing > technology", it's a poorly optimized game. Period. > > Joe McGinn > _____________________ > Radical Entertainment

Well I feel you may be very much alone Karl, with that opinion about GP2. It was one, and still is, one of the most popular racing sims yet released. It used to run fine on my old Pentium 75 and after playing it solidly for 2 years, it never occurred to me that this brilliant sim was a result of bad programming. If indeed it is a case of bad programming I guess we have to hope that Geoff has programmed GP3 just as awfully. Chris In article <Uj%N4.27230$[email hidden] ops.be>, "Karl Zosel" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I still feel that GP2 was a real rip-off. >Geoff designed a game that would produce very nice screenshots,nothing >more. >Yes its true, the car-physics were very good too at the time,but

Quoted text (7 lines)

>graphically GP2 was an example of VERY BAD PROGRAMMING. > >I'm waiting to see what GP3 will be like, but I'm very sceptic. > > > >

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

"Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Maybe the limiting factor is the physics not the graphics. >Just an idea Seems highly unlikely, since turning down graphics detail, mirrors, the cirtual cockpit, and other graphics options "fixes" the problem. Joe McGinn _____________________ Radical Entertainment

It helps, yes, but you get to a point where turning the detail down brings no further benefit. I have since tried running it in windowed mode as suggested here and that does improve things so maybe it is poor programming after all ;) -- Ian Parker == Joe62 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Maybe the limiting factor is the physics not the graphics. > >Just an idea > > Seems highly unlikely, since turning down graphics detail, mirrors, > the cirtual cockpit, and other graphics options "fixes" the problem. > > Joe McGinn > _____________________ > Radical Entertainment