I just think all racing sims should let you "cap" the framerate. I used to
run GP2 at a lowly 16 fps, and that was just fine because at least the
framerate was steady. GPL caps it at 36, which is nice, although it might
be better if there was an option to cap it lower.
A fluctuating framerate makes the car a bitch to control in any "serious"
sim. Far worse than a low but steady framerate IMO.
That's my own personal rant. :)
-A
DjFIL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Hey Andre, What video card do you have? I actually think the framerate on NFS
5 is rather poor on my system.( PII 350,128 RAM, 12 MEG V2 SLI, full install of
the game ) .Even with most graphics set to medium or lower. SLI only going to
800x600 in this game doesn't thrill me either.
Doug
Doug, I have a similar spec to yours, but I have a 400, 128meg of RAM,
and a 32 meg TNT2. The Factory Driver missions are smooth as glass
with all details pegged at 800x600.
In the races with 5+ AI cars, things get slightly chunky when they're
all in sight, then speed right up when there are only 2 or so.
I think the game runs good for as stunning as it looks, but it still
requires a pretty powerful machine to do better than 800x600 with a
consistently high frame-rate.
Tim
On 29 Mar 2000 21:53:21 GMT, [email hidden] (Bruins9900) wrote:
>Hey Andre, What video card do you have? I actually think the framerate on NFS
>5 is rather poor on my system.( PII 350,128 RAM, 12 MEG V2 SLI, full install of
>the game ) .Even with most graphics set to medium or lower. SLI only going to
>800x600 in this game doesn't thrill me either.
>
>Doug
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:02:44 -0800, "Aubrey"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>I just think all racing sims should let you "cap" the framerate.
>A fluctuating framerate makes the car a bitch to control in any "serious"
>sim. Far worse than a low but steady framerate IMO.
If you enable VSYNC on your graphics card, your framerates will be
perfectly capped at 60 or 75 fps. <G>
Blaze
I just downloaded fraps to see what I'm running at... Here's the list
of tested games.
F1 2000 in software - 8>12
SBK 2000 beta - 10>16
Cart PR - 12>18
DTR with 5 ai cars - 10>20
GP500 with 3 ai bikes - 12>20
GP2 (via setup screen, est FPS) - 16
This is with average graphics on. On my "average" system. F1 2000 with
horrible graphics, cause I can't run 3d for some reason. Personally I
noticed, I'm happy when I can get 12 FPS. Below it's a bit slow, higher
it's just nice to see. I dunno why you all can't live with lower frame
rates, all wanting 30-35... jeesh. I've seen it, but I dunno why such a
fuss. Maybe I've just played games like this since the start, and
you've always had a top system. Here's what I'm gonna say though.
Personally I'll kill some Frames for some eye candy. That's just me.
But for you all when WSC comes out, you'll probably all want the
graphics we've been seeing in the awesome released screen shots. The
problem is, most likely when you go for that, you won't get a good FPS.
That's a fact. And regarding companies and their little "suggested
computers".. my ass. Translations:
"Required" : what you need for no graphics, and still harsh fps.
"Recommended" : what you need for medium graphics and ok fps.
and of course this is if your computer is in line and tuned for max
performance.
Fact for this post is, I dunno why you are all complaining. Games need
more power than your word processor, take it as a fact. And with games
getting more complex every time out, you'll need again a faster
computer. Take the game as you can, optimize it as you can, but don't
complain unless it's a major problem. Tip: learn to sacrifice some
graphics if frame rate is really that important to you.
DjFIL
Give me a break. 12 fps sucks.
DjFIL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (37 lines)
> I just downloaded fraps to see what I'm running at... Here's the list > of tested games. > > F1 2000 in software - 8>12 > SBK 2000 beta - 10>16 > Cart PR - 12>18 > DTR with 5 ai cars - 10>20 > GP500 with 3 ai bikes - 12>20 > GP2 (via setup screen, est FPS) - 16 > > This is with average graphics on. On my "average" system. F1 2000 with > horrible graphics, cause I can't run 3d for some reason. Personally I > noticed, I'm happy when I can get 12 FPS. Below it's a bit slow, higher > it's just nice to see. I dunno why you all can't live with lower frame > rates, all wanting 30-35... jeesh. I've seen it, but I dunno why such a > fuss. Maybe I've just played games like this since the start, and > you've always had a top system. Here's what I'm gonna say though. > Personally I'll kill some Frames for some eye candy. That's just me. > But for you all when WSC comes out, you'll probably all want the > graphics we've been seeing in the awesome released screen shots. The > problem is, most likely when you go for that, you won't get a good FPS. > That's a fact. And regarding companies and their little "suggested > computers".. my ass. Translations: > "Required" : what you need for no graphics, and still harsh fps. > "Recommended" : what you need for medium graphics and ok fps. > and of course this is if your computer is in line and tuned for max > performance. > > Fact for this post is, I dunno why you are all complaining. Games need > more power than your word processor, take it as a fact. And with games > getting more complex every time out, you'll need again a faster > computer. Take the game as you can, optimize it as you can, but don't > complain unless it's a major problem. Tip: learn to sacrifice some > graphics if frame rate is really that important to you. > > DjFIL >bad programming
Comapanies rush their products
It's true though. My friend, who can run f1 2000 really damn well (fps and
graphics), notices the changes when he comes to my house. But since I've been
with such a moderate frame rate all the time, I'm use to it and can comply
just well.
Todd Sorensen wrote:
Quoted text (40 lines)
> Give me a break. 12 fps sucks. > > DjFIL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I just downloaded fraps to see what I'm running at... Here's the list > > of tested games. > > > > F1 2000 in software - 8>12 > > SBK 2000 beta - 10>16 > > Cart PR - 12>18 > > DTR with 5 ai cars - 10>20 > > GP500 with 3 ai bikes - 12>20 > > GP2 (via setup screen, est FPS) - 16 > > > > This is with average graphics on. On my "average" system. F1 2000 with > > horrible graphics, cause I can't run 3d for some reason. Personally I > > noticed, I'm happy when I can get 12 FPS. Below it's a bit slow, higher > > it's just nice to see. I dunno why you all can't live with lower frame > > rates, all wanting 30-35... jeesh. I've seen it, but I dunno why such a > > fuss. Maybe I've just played games like this since the start, and > > you've always had a top system. Here's what I'm gonna say though. > > Personally I'll kill some Frames for some eye candy. That's just me. > > But for you all when WSC comes out, you'll probably all want the > > graphics we've been seeing in the awesome released screen shots. The > > problem is, most likely when you go for that, you won't get a good FPS. > > That's a fact. And regarding companies and their little "suggested > > computers".. my ass. Translations: > > "Required" : what you need for no graphics, and still harsh fps. > > "Recommended" : what you need for medium graphics and ok fps. > > and of course this is if your computer is in line and tuned for max > > performance. > > > > Fact for this post is, I dunno why you are all complaining. Games need > > more power than your word processor, take it as a fact. And with games > > getting more complex every time out, you'll need again a faster > > computer. Take the game as you can, optimize it as you can, but don't > > complain unless it's a major problem. Tip: learn to sacrifice some > > graphics if frame rate is really that important to you. > > > > DjFIL > >A good framerate is VERY important for a racing sim. Driving good laps
with 12fps in GPL is very hard (and an unfair disadvantage!).
Believe me, if you would play gpl or any other driving sim a couple of
hours with a good framerate, and after that you go back to 12fps, you
will certainly notice a big difference. Not only the visual smoothnes
with the higher fps, but also a much bigger accuracy thus playability.
And it's not all hardware-dependant. If you see how horrible F1 2000
runs with all the details on, and you compare that to the excellent
fps of Porsche 2000 (which looks ten times better than F1 2000) you
can only conclude that the programming itself is very important for a
good fps.
Andre
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:36:53 GMT, DjFIL <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>
Quoted text (8 lines)
>Fact for this post is, I dunno why you are all complaining. Games need >more power than your word processor, take it as a fact. And with games >getting more complex every time out, you'll need again a faster >computer. Take the game as you can, optimize it as you can, but don't >complain unless it's a major problem. Tip: learn to sacrifice some >graphics if frame rate is really that important to you. > >DjFILSeriously, this is just you. Some people are more susceptible to seeing
frame rates than others, just as they are at seeing flicker at 60Hz refresh
rates. For an average person, the industry standard for perceiving frames as
smooth on a computer is 30 fps. For film I think it's somewhere around 22 or
23 fps. For myself, I can start seeing frames when the rate drops to about
25 or 26. We're all different.
Slot
DjFIL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (37 lines)
> I just downloaded fraps to see what I'm running at... Here's the list > of tested games. > > F1 2000 in software - 8>12 > SBK 2000 beta - 10>16 > Cart PR - 12>18 > DTR with 5 ai cars - 10>20 > GP500 with 3 ai bikes - 12>20 > GP2 (via setup screen, est FPS) - 16 > > This is with average graphics on. On my "average" system. F1 2000 with > horrible graphics, cause I can't run 3d for some reason. Personally I > noticed, I'm happy when I can get 12 FPS. Below it's a bit slow, higher > it's just nice to see. I dunno why you all can't live with lower frame > rates, all wanting 30-35... jeesh. I've seen it, but I dunno why such a > fuss. Maybe I've just played games like this since the start, and > you've always had a top system. Here's what I'm gonna say though. > Personally I'll kill some Frames for some eye candy. That's just me. > But for you all when WSC comes out, you'll probably all want the > graphics we've been seeing in the awesome released screen shots. The > problem is, most likely when you go for that, you won't get a good FPS. > That's a fact. And regarding companies and their little "suggested > computers".. my ass. Translations: > "Required" : what you need for no graphics, and still harsh fps. > "Recommended" : what you need for medium graphics and ok fps. > and of course this is if your computer is in line and tuned for max > performance. > > Fact for this post is, I dunno why you are all complaining. Games need > more power than your word processor, take it as a fact. And with games > getting more complex every time out, you'll need again a faster > computer. Take the game as you can, optimize it as you can, but don't > complain unless it's a major problem. Tip: learn to sacrifice some > graphics if frame rate is really that important to you. > > DjFIL >> Personally I'll kill some Frames for some eye candy. That's just me.
>
So I guess you also will kill your eyes for some candy?!?!?
But remeber you won't see the candy with killed eyes!!!
Maybe in a quiet moment you are going to think about this...
CU
Zolli
