Re: Anyone post specs - FPS F12K

What back shelf at Wallmart have you been finding your games at brother? Because if by BEAUTIFULY you mean 600x400, 1/2 the detial disabled, 1/4 the normal size racing field and 30fps then you may be right - otherwise sit back down and be quiet because QUAKE III and The SIMs don't count. Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:04:25 -0800, "SlipStream" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (includingres > >and settings) > > > >I hate buying a game only to find out it doesn't run on even a middle ofthe > >road system (450mhz) without turning every detail off. That is bullshitand > >developers need to be punished for putting up system specs like 266 when > >their titles don't run on 600s with decent detail. And then they dare to > >give us frozen screen shots at max resolution/detail....fuck that andfuck > >them. Lets see those screen shots from the so called 266 req system. > > > >I beleive the two things any real driving sim should have are dead on > >physics matched by an outstanding frame rate....without these two therest > >is insignificant. Give me card board cutout fans and trees...give meplain > >blue skys...give me so-so sound...but damn it GIVE ME A GAME THAT WILLBURN > >RUBBER ON A 450 MAX DETAIL or raise the specs on your box to 1GHZ andloose > >the pack-bell owning, wallmart shopping, dear hunter loving, tech support > >calling CASH COW that you so love to take advantage of. Try making a REAL > >SIM that DRIVES FAST and you will not only have the simfanatics comingout

Quoted text (40 lines)

> >in droves but you will also gain the trust and cash of the simmless. > > Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which > won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D > accelerator. It's easy to get carried away hearing about the latest > 900MHz processors, with all the topics, and forget that what you're > using is still a very decent gaming system. > > You didn't mention which 3D card you were using. If you're not using > one at all, then that's where your problem is. Avoid software > rendering at all costs, if you can. > You can buy an excellent 3Dfx Voodoo3 2000 for around �70.00. With a > card like that, you'll have no problems running even the most > demanding of games at a reasonable resolution with most texture > details turned up. > > Discussion over the minimum and recommended specs which game > developers put on their boxes has been debated long and hard. You only > need to read an issue of PC Gamer to see that they very rarely agree > with the minimum specs on the box, and instead try give us a more > realistic minimum spec. The game developer will usually put as low a > spec as possible on the box, to increase the sales market to those > with lower-end PCs. All they need to prove is that it will 'run' on a > Pentium MMX 200MHz, for example. But they don't need to say how well > it will run. Legally, they're not cheating anybody, because they are > actually quoting a 'minimum' spec. Both technically and morally > however, you should always think long and hard about the spec of your > system and what is recommended. And if there's any chance that you > might not be able to return the product, it's always a good idea to > find out on-line (newsgroups are a perfect answer) what other people > with a similar system to yours have felt about running it. > > > Best regards... > > "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you > don't strike - you just go in every day > and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" > > - Homer J. Simpson

On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 03:28:06 +0100, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:29:52 +0100, "Sjon Stigter" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>When I am alone on the track the game runs very smooth but as soon as other >>cars are on the track FPS drop just as hard as World Online shares... > >LOL! :) > >> >>I am running a P3 - 450 mhz, 64 mb RAM, 20 gig DiamondMAX HD and a Voodoo3 >>3000 oc'ed to 180 mhz. That's about what every serious simracer has standing >>nowadays and it doesn't really seem to be enough to race against the AI in >>F12k... shit... >> >>-- Sjon > >Have you turned the details down, and smoke and skids completely off? >After that the fps should be ok... >Reminds me of the time when GP2 was released, nobody could run it with >all details on... > >Andre

Also, the mirrors, on my system at least, made a -dramatic- difference in framerate. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:04:25 -0800, "SlipStream" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (including res >and settings) There is no FPS display that I am aware of. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

You might try the nifty little utility at http://www.fraps.com/ Cheers, Steve B. rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:04:25 -0800, "SlipStream" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (includingres

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >and settings) > > There is no FPS display that I am aware of. > > -- > * rrev at mindspring dot com > * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. > * http://www.cabal.net

When I am alone on the track the game runs very smooth but as soon as other cars are on the track FPS drop just as hard as World Online shares... I am running a P3 - 450 mhz, 64 mb RAM, 20 gig DiamondMAX HD and a Voodoo3 3000 oc'ed to 180 mhz. That's about what every serious simracer has standing nowadays and it doesn't really seem to be enough to race against the AI in F12k... shit... -- Sjon SlipStream <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (includingres > and settings) > > I hate buying a game only to find out it doesn't run on even a middle ofthe > road system (450mhz) without turning every detail off. That is bullshitand

Quoted text (9 lines)

> developers need to be punished for putting up system specs like 266 when > their titles don't run on 600s with decent detail. And then they dare to > give us frozen screen shots at max resolution/detail....fuck that and fuck > them. Lets see those screen shots from the so called 266 req system. > > I beleive the two things any real driving sim should have are dead on > physics matched by an outstanding frame rate....without these two the rest > is insignificant. Give me card board cutout fans and trees...give me plain > blue skys...give me so-so sound...but damn it GIVE ME A GAME THAT WILL

BURN > RUBBER ON A 450 MAX DETAIL or raise the specs on your box to 1GHZ andloose

Quoted text (7 lines)

> the pack-bell owning, wallmart shopping, dear hunter loving, tech support > calling CASH COW that you so love to take advantage of. Try making a REAL > SIM that DRIVES FAST and you will not only have the simfanatics coming out > in droves but you will also gain the trust and cash of the simmless. > > >

Turn and back ground detail off and that is what you,ll have. SlipStream wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (including res > and settings) > > I hate buying a game only to find out it doesn't run on even a middle of the > road system (450mhz) without turning every detail off. That is bullshit and > developers need to be punished for putting up system specs like 266 when > their titles don't run on 600s with decent detail. And then they dare to > give us frozen screen shots at max resolution/detail....fuck that and fuck > them. Lets see those screen shots from the so called 266 req system. > > I beleive the two things any real driving sim should have are dead on > physics matched by an outstanding frame rate....without these two the rest > is insignificant. Give me card board cutout fans and trees...give me plain > blue skys...give me so-so sound...but damn it GIVE ME A GAME THAT WILL BURN > RUBBER ON A 450 MAX DETAIL or raise the specs on your box to 1GHZ and loose > the pack-bell owning, wallmart shopping, dear hunter loving, tech support > calling CASH COW that you so love to take advantage of. Try making a REAL > SIM that DRIVES FAST and you will not only have the simfanatics coming out > in droves but you will also gain the trust and cash of the simmless.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:04:25 -0800, "SlipStream" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (including res >and settings) > >I hate buying a game only to find out it doesn't run on even a middle of the >road system (450mhz) without turning every detail off. That is bullshit and >developers need to be punished for putting up system specs like 266 when >their titles don't run on 600s with decent detail. And then they dare to >give us frozen screen shots at max resolution/detail....fuck that and fuck >them. Lets see those screen shots from the so called 266 req system. > >I beleive the two things any real driving sim should have are dead on >physics matched by an outstanding frame rate....without these two the rest >is insignificant. Give me card board cutout fans and trees...give me plain >blue skys...give me so-so sound...but damn it GIVE ME A GAME THAT WILL BURN >RUBBER ON A 450 MAX DETAIL or raise the specs on your box to 1GHZ and loose >the pack-bell owning, wallmart shopping, dear hunter loving, tech support >calling CASH COW that you so love to take advantage of. Try making a REAL >SIM that DRIVES FAST and you will not only have the simfanatics coming out >in droves but you will also gain the trust and cash of the simmless.

Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D accelerator. It's easy to get carried away hearing about the latest 900MHz processors, with all the topics, and forget that what you're using is still a very decent gaming system. You didn't mention which 3D card you were using. If you're not using one at all, then that's where your problem is. Avoid software rendering at all costs, if you can. You can buy an excellent 3Dfx Voodoo3 2000 for around �70.00. With a card like that, you'll have no problems running even the most demanding of games at a reasonable resolution with most texture details turned up. Discussion over the minimum and recommended specs which game developers put on their boxes has been debated long and hard. You only need to read an issue of PC Gamer to see that they very rarely agree with the minimum specs on the box, and instead try give us a more realistic minimum spec. The game developer will usually put as low a spec as possible on the box, to increase the sales market to those with lower-end PCs. All they need to prove is that it will 'run' on a Pentium MMX 200MHz, for example. But they don't need to say how well it will run. Legally, they're not cheating anybody, because they are actually quoting a 'minimum' spec. Both technically and morally however, you should always think long and hard about the spec of your system and what is recommended. And if there's any chance that you might not be able to return the product, it's always a good idea to find out on-line (newsgroups are a perfect answer) what other people with a similar system to yours have felt about running it. Best regards... "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" - Homer J. Simpson

Amen my brotha'! Amen! -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ SlipStream <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (including res > and settings) > > I hate buying a game only to find out it doesn't run on even a middle of the > road system (450mhz) without turning every detail off. That is bullshit and > developers need to be punished for putting up system specs like 266 when > their titles don't run on 600s with decent detail. And then they dare to > give us frozen screen shots at max resolution/detail....fuck that and fuck > them. Lets see those screen shots from the so called 266 req system. > > I beleive the two things any real driving sim should have are dead on > physics matched by an outstanding frame rate....without these two the rest > is insignificant. Give me card board cutout fans and trees...give me plain > blue skys...give me so-so sound...but damn it GIVE ME A GAME THAT WILL BURN > RUBBER ON A 450 MAX DETAIL or raise the specs on your box to 1GHZ and loose > the pack-bell owning, wallmart shopping, dear hunter loving, tech support > calling CASH COW that you so love to take advantage of. Try making a REAL > SIM that DRIVES FAST and you will not only have the simfanatics coming out > in droves but you will also gain the trust and cash of the simmless. > > >

Well, look at the big brain on brad....I am running software mode...HELLO that must be it - silly me, spending all that money on this GForce when I just run in software mode - go figure. First off I said no quake...that is not a sim. Try Rally Championship on your 450 with V3....28fps sound good to you? Sports car GT I beleive used to stumble on my old system also with max settings and from what I hear FS2000 and F12000 are both beasts on fps. My point...WHY make all this detail in a game that doesn't work on the standard system (say 450/500). I don't care but nobody wants to buy something and then have to wait a year until their hardware catches up...the publishers should be spending more programing time on creating an game engine that can run high detail and full field with the standard system. Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:04:45 -0600, "L_NiN0" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > I said: > > >>Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which > >>won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D > >>accelerator. It's easy to get carried away hearing about the latest > >>900MHz processors, with all the topics, and forget that what you're > >>using is still a very decent gaming system. > >> > >>You didn't mention which 3D card you were using. If you're not using > >>one at all, then that's where your problem is. Avoid software > >>rendering at all costs, if you can. > >> You can buy an excellent 3Dfx Voodoo3 2000 for around �70.00. With a > >>card like that, you'll have no problems running even the most > >>demanding of games at a reasonable resolution with most texture > >>details turned up. > > Notice how I said that without using a 3D accelerator, that's where > the problems would be. > > And then you said: > > >What back shelf at Wallmart have you been finding your games at brother? > >Because if by BEAUTIFULY you mean 600x400, 1/2 the detial disabled, 1/4

the

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >normal size racing field and 30fps then you may be right - otherwise sit > >back down and be quiet because QUAKE III and The SIMs don't count. > > I fully stand by my previous post. Even Quake 3 on a 450MHz processor > with a 3D card such as the Voodoo 3 (even the V3 2000) will run > perfectly well, even in resolutions above 640x640. > > I did not say that running any game on a Pentium II at 450MHz in > 'software rendering' would run beautifully. In most cases, new games > won't run at all. But with the correct 3D accelerator it's still a > stable gaming system. > > > Best regards... > > "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you > don't strike - you just go in every day > and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" > > - Homer J. Simpson

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:29:52 +0100, "Sjon Stigter" <[email hidden]> wrote: >When I am alone on the track the game runs very smooth but as soon as other >cars are on the track FPS drop just as hard as World Online shares... LOL! :)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >I am running a P3 - 450 mhz, 64 mb RAM, 20 gig DiamondMAX HD and a Voodoo3 >3000 oc'ed to 180 mhz. That's about what every serious simracer has standing >nowadays and it doesn't really seem to be enough to race against the AI in >F12k... shit... > >-- Sjon

Have you turned the details down, and smoke and skids completely off? After that the fps should be ok... Reminds me of the time when GP2 was released, nobody could run it with all details on... Andre

Silver Shadow wrote: > Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which > won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D > accelerator. Tried Quake 3 Arena or Flight Simulator 2000 with any level of detail at all & above 640x480? They'll run on a PII 450, but I wouldn't describe it as beautifully. -- 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

I have a 450 with a V3 card and I play both Q3 and UT at 1024 resolution with no problems whatsoever Chuck Kandler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Silver Shadow wrote: > > Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which > > won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D > > accelerator. > > Tried Quake 3 Arena or Flight Simulator 2000 with any level of detail at > all & above 640x480? > They'll run on a PII 450, but I wouldn't describe it as beautifully. > > -- > 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

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 23:04:45 -0600, "L_NiN0" <[email hidden]> wrote: I said:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which >>won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D >>accelerator. It's easy to get carried away hearing about the latest >>900MHz processors, with all the topics, and forget that what you're >>using is still a very decent gaming system. >> >>You didn't mention which 3D card you were using. If you're not using >>one at all, then that's where your problem is. Avoid software >>rendering at all costs, if you can. >> You can buy an excellent 3Dfx Voodoo3 2000 for around �70.00. With a >>card like that, you'll have no problems running even the most >>demanding of games at a reasonable resolution with most texture >>details turned up.

Notice how I said that without using a 3D accelerator, that's where the problems would be. And then you said: >What back shelf at Wallmart have you been finding your games at brother? >Because if by BEAUTIFULY you mean 600x400, 1/2 the detial disabled, 1/4 the >normal size racing field and 30fps then you may be right - otherwise sit >back down and be quiet because QUAKE III and The SIMs don't count. I fully stand by my previous post. Even Quake 3 on a 450MHz processor with a 3D card such as the Voodoo 3 (even the V3 2000) will run perfectly well, even in resolutions above 640x640. I did not say that running any game on a Pentium II at 450MHz in 'software rendering' would run beautifully. In most cases, new games won't run at all. But with the correct 3D accelerator it's still a stable gaming system. Best regards... "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" - Homer J. Simpson

Ofcourse that depend heavily on the graphic card used. I don't have FS2000, but a friend of mine showed it on his PIII 500 with Voodoo 3 card, and it still looked very choppy in 800 resolution. But Quake runs as smooth as silk on my PII 450, all details on in 800 resolution, Voodoo II SLI. Andre On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:55:16 GMT, Chuck Kandler <[email hidden]> wrote: >Tried Quake 3 Arena or Flight Simulator 2000 with any level of detail at >all & above 640x480? >They'll run on a PII 450, but I wouldn't describe it as beautifully.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:27:54 +0000, Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish >>above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then >>set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference. > >ROFL! You must work for Compaq! > >You ought to take a look at http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm >to understand the differences between 'frame' rate and 'refresh' rate. > >The same site will also explain why the human eye can not distinguish >the difference from 30fps and above.

*plonk* - both SilverShadow and this thread. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:25:47 +0000, Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote: >>Try Rally Championship on your 450 with V3....28fps sound good to you? > >If 28fps is what you get on that system in Rally Championship, then >yes, it does sound good. The human eye can only focus in on objects >moving under 30fps. Bzzt.. not true, Silver Shadow. PLEASE dont believe that the human eye can only distinguish up to 30fps, and most importantly PLEASE dont re-hash this (incorrect) usenet legend that seems to pop up every two or three months. Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:27:40 +0000, Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:22:18 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>I can assure you that when GPL was released a couple of >>years ago, that no one in their right mind, with any system >>on earth, had theirs set greater than 640x480. > >Some of us did. :-) Then again, some of us tried to run it in software >rendering for a while too, so perhaps our opinion doesn't count for >much. <g>

What kind of system did you run it on, Silver Shadow? I had a -really- powerful one and to -maintain- a 30 fps rate, I had to go to 640x480. Let us know what you were using 2 years ago. Thanks. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:55:57 -0600, "L_NiN0" <[email hidden]> wrote: >My point...WHY make all this detail in a game that doesn't work on the >standard system (say 450/500). I don't care but nobody wants to buy >something and then have to wait a year until their hardware catches up. Hmm.. I guess if Papyrus had felt the way you do, they wouldn't have had greater resolution in GPL than 640x480. I can assure you that when GPL was released a couple of years ago, that no one in their right mind, with any system on earth, had theirs set greater than 640x480. Wow, what were those fools at Papyrus thinking by giving us all that damned hi-res shit ? No one could possibly use it. I mean you said it best: "nobody wants to buy something and then have to wait a year until their hardware catches up." LOL Look.. L_NiN0, you have had a really, really bad day here, son. Why not quit while you're behind. -- * rrev at mindspring dot com * unit.26 - s.p.u.t.u.m. * http://www.cabal.net

I don't think that someone would get all worked up about gameplay smoothness and call him self a sim fanatic if he doesn't have a 3d card!? C'mon Silver he's right. I can understand games decreasing frame rates when it's do to calculating physics and all but some smarter coding and more time for programming would make games run much better on different platforms! -- Oli BeoRocket Racing http://www.beorocket.co.yu/ Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:04:25 -0800, "SlipStream" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Can you people who d/l F1-2000 post some machine specs vs fps (including res > >and settings) > > > >I hate buying a game only to find out it doesn't run on even a middle of the > >road system (450mhz) without turning every detail off. That is bullshit and > >developers need to be punished for putting up system specs like 266 when > >their titles don't run on 600s with decent detail. And then they dare to > >give us frozen screen shots at max resolution/detail....fuck that and fuck > >them. Lets see those screen shots from the so called 266 req system. > > > >I beleive the two things any real driving sim should have are dead on > >physics matched by an outstanding frame rate....without these two the rest > >is insignificant. Give me card board cutout fans and trees...give me plain > >blue skys...give me so-so sound...but damn it GIVE ME A GAME THAT WILL BURN > >RUBBER ON A 450 MAX DETAIL or raise the specs on your box to 1GHZ and loose > >the pack-bell owning, wallmart shopping, dear hunter loving, tech support > >calling CASH COW that you so love to take advantage of. Try making a REAL > >SIM that DRIVES FAST and you will not only have the simfanatics coming out > >in droves but you will also gain the trust and cash of the simmless. > > Just a minute. There's currently no game title I'm aware of which > won't run beautifully on a 450MHz Pentium 2 with a decent 3D > accelerator. It's easy to get carried away hearing about the latest > 900MHz processors, with all the topics, and forget that what you're > using is still a very decent gaming system. > > You didn't mention which 3D card you were using. If you're not using > one at all, then that's where your problem is. Avoid software > rendering at all costs, if you can. > You can buy an excellent 3Dfx Voodoo3 2000 for around �70.00. With a > card like that, you'll have no problems running even the most > demanding of games at a reasonable resolution with most texture > details turned up. > > Discussion over the minimum and recommended specs which game > developers put on their boxes has been debated long and hard. You only > need to read an issue of PC Gamer to see that they very rarely agree > with the minimum specs on the box, and instead try give us a more > realistic minimum spec. The game developer will usually put as low a > spec as possible on the box, to increase the sales market to those > with lower-end PCs. All they need to prove is that it will 'run' on a > Pentium MMX 200MHz, for example. But they don't need to say how well > it will run. Legally, they're not cheating anybody, because they are > actually quoting a 'minimum' spec. Both technically and morally > however, you should always think long and hard about the spec of your > system and what is recommended. And if there's any chance that you > might not be able to return the product, it's always a good idea to > find out on-line (newsgroups are a perfect answer) what other people > with a similar system to yours have felt about running it. > > > Best regards... > > "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you > don't strike - you just go in every day > and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" > > - Homer J. Simpson

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:47:15 +0100, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ofcourse that depend heavily on the graphic card used. >I don't have FS2000, but a friend of mine showed it on his PIII 500 >with Voodoo 3 card, and it still looked very choppy in 800 resolution. A friend of mine has the same system (V3 3500, BTW) and didn't perform very well in the frame rate department. From a glance, I assumed it was due to the processor, but having read through many of the posts over at 'rec.aviation.simulators' I see that people with even higher spec machines are having the same low frame rate problem. This would suggest poor programming on Microsoft's part. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft attempt to deal with this issue in a future patch. I've noticed the same thing. However, if you take a look at some of the threads in rec.aviation.simulators, you'll find that even higher spec machines are having the same problem. The FPS issue in FLTSIM 2000 seems to be less about the processor you're using and more about some rather careless and sloppy programming on Microsoft's part. >But Quake runs as smooth as silk on my PII 450, all details on in 800 >resolution, Voodoo II SLI. No problems running it on a Celeron 500MHz, 128MB RAM and a 12MB Voodoo 2 either. To empathise more on my point about the P2 450MHz processor being a very decent system, step back to a point in time not too long ago - before the release of the Pentium 3's and AMD K7's. The fastest processor you could buy (this does not include overclocked processors, or dual processors) was a Pentium II at 450MHz, but the average spec most of us had was of around the 200-300MHz mark. That sort of spec was considered to be fine for most games - although you would need a 3D card if you wanted to play games like Quake 2 very well. Now, in recent times the most powerful processor you can buy is around 800-850MHz (of course, this number will be increasing dramatically over the next year). So, if when the Pentium 2 450MHz processors were king, and a 200-300MHz processor was considered very reasonable (a drop of 250MHz from a 450, for the Pentium II 200), then using that same means of thinking in todays terms, a 450-550MHz processor would be considered a perfectly reasonable processor also. On top of that, take into account that these days most games computers will have a 3D accelerator, which takes yet more strain off the processor, this decreases the current CPU requirement for games, and shall continue to do so with newer 3D cards. The worth of a system also depends on what type of user you are. I, for example, an perfectly happy turning down most of the details in Unreal Tournament to have it run on my Pentium MMX 200MHz with just 32MB of RAM. On the other hand, I know people who like to be on top of technology with the fastest system all the time (or as long as their budget permits it). It can be all too easy to get carried away in the mist of the latest reviews of the 1GHz processors and start believing that you somehow 'need' one also. Most of you don't. Best regards... "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" - Homer J. Simpson

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Ofcourse that depend heavily on the graphic card used. > I don't have FS2000, but a friend of mine showed it on his PIII 500 > with Voodoo 3 card, and it still looked very choppy in 800 resolution. > > But Quake runs as smooth as silk on my PII 450, all details on in 800 > resolution, Voodoo II SLI. >

Granted, the FS2000 example is the strongest of the two but I'm one of those who likes his FPS's in all their 1024x768 glory. Having a Cel466/V3 3000/64 MB RAM, Quake 3 with all graphics up full-tilt boogie gets hiccups here & there. Probably due to my RAM (or lack thereof!<g>). But the point still remains, there are certainly programs out there that don't run "perfectly well" on machines as low as PII450. I'm sure there are others as well. -- 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

On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:55:57 -0600, "L_NiN0" <[email hidden]> wrote: >First off I said no quake...that is not a sim. That's irrelevant. We were discussing whether or not a Pentium II 450 is a decent PC for games. Not just simulators. >Try Rally Championship on your 450 with V3....28fps sound good to you? If 28fps is what you get on that system in Rally Championship, then yes, it does sound good. The human eye can only focus in on objects moving under 30fps. That's just 2fps less than what you're getting. Not bad at all. >Sports car GT I beleive used to >stumble on my old system also with max settings and from what I hear FS2000 >and F12000 are both beasts on fps. As I said, sloppy programming on the part of Microsoft. There's no 'reason' for FLTSIM 2000 to have this problem. It's not setting new heights in graphics or physics, afterall. >My point...WHY make all this detail in a game that doesn't work on the >standard system (say 450/500). I don't care but nobody wants to buy >something and then have to wait a year until their hardware catches up...the >publishers should be spending more programing time on creating an game >engine that can run high detail and full field with the standard system. They certainly should. But to be fair, it is about give and take. Game developers should be willing to spend more time programming their games for use on lower-end systems, but we (the consumer) should also be willing to pull down the texture details just a little bit without much complaint. Give and take. Best regards... "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" - Homer J. Simpson

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:22:18 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote: >I can assure you that when GPL was released a couple of >years ago, that no one in their right mind, with any system >on earth, had theirs set greater than 640x480. Some of us did. :-) Then again, some of us tried to run it in software rendering for a while too, so perhaps our opinion doesn't count for much. <g> Best regards... "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" - Homer J. Simpson

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:25:47 +0000 Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote: % If 28fps is what you get on that system in Rally Championship, then % yes, it does sound good. The human eye can only focus in on objects % moving under 30fps. That's just 2fps less than what you're getting. % Not bad at all. Stop It! This is a myth and is not true. If you must support your claims, please use facts not myth... In the effort to conserve bandwidth (and tempers), instead of continuing to rehash old turf-war battles go to the following URL's and read what others have to say on this topic. http://www.firingsquad.com/features/faceoff/6-fps/default.asp http://www.sony-europe.com/tve/trinitron/100hz.html 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Quoted text (26 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]> > Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:34:58 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > >>Bzzt.. not true, Silver Shadow. PLEASE dont believe that the > >>human eye can only distinguish up to 30fps, and most importantly > >>PLEASE dont re-hash this (incorrect) usenet legend that seems to > >>pop up every two or three months. > >> > >>Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish > >>above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then > >>set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference. > > > > The issue of whether or not the human eye can see more than 30fps has > > been discussed for years, and game newsgroups often get filled up with > > the same old arguments. The real edge truth however, is that when the > > human eye sees 100fps (for example), it notices no difference to if it > > were viewing 30fps. That's why a game running at 30fps will appear to > > move very smoothly, whereas anything under will appear to flicker into > > life, as lower frame rates appear as still images, rather than a > > collection of still images which make up one large smooth image. > > I must concur with the other posters that claim that the human eye can see > more than 30 fps. I have been told by my eye-doctor (what's it called)

that > the integration time for the human eye is about 0.1 seconds. So the human > could 'see' 100 actual fps. The myth about the human eye not being able to > distinguish more than 30 fps comes from the fact that television is 30fps, > (25 fps in Europe) and movies are 24 fps and they all 'look' fluid. I say'look' > because if you look real close, you _will_ see the actual frames. The fact > that 24 fps looks fluid comes from the fact that the cameras used torecord > the film is using a 1/24 second shutter time, making fast action blurred(motion > blur of the next gen voodoo cards). > > So get your facts straight. > Dennis. > One minor correction; the shutter speed is not necessarily 1/24th second in motion pictures. The film is driven along (using that wonderful Geneva mechanism) at 24 frames per second, but the shutter speed can be indepentently selected. You're right about the motion blur. For an idea of how motion blur can change your perception of fluidity, either read the Voodoo literature you refer to, or think about some of the newer sports coverage which uses fast shutter speeds (1/1000th sometimes) on their video, which itself is running at 30 fps. Even though the action is progressing in real-time, at that magic 30fps, your brain tells you something is not "right" with the sequence filmed using a fast shutter camera. The fast shutter eliminates motion blur in even the fastest sports, and without the blur, your eye and brain begins to perceive the individual frames. Stephen

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:34:58 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Bzzt.. not true, Silver Shadow. PLEASE dont believe that the >human eye can only distinguish up to 30fps, and most importantly >PLEASE dont re-hash this (incorrect) usenet legend that seems to >pop up every two or three months. > >Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish >above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then >set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference.

ROFL! You must work for Compaq! You ought to take a look at http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm to understand the differences between 'frame' rate and 'refresh' rate. The same site will also explain why the human eye can not distinguish the difference from 30fps and above. The issue of whether or not the human eye can see more than 30fps has been discussed for years, and game newsgroups often get filled up with the same old arguments. The real edge truth however, is that when the human eye sees 100fps (for example), it notices no difference to if it were viewing 30fps. That's why a game running at 30fps will appear to move very smoothly, whereas anything under will appear to flicker into life, as lower frame rates appear as still images, rather than a collection of still images which make up one large smooth image. Best regards... "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you don't strike - you just go in every day and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" - Homer J. Simpson

I will admit that when I am running N3 at 30fps, it looks smooth to me. I do not see any lack of frames that makes me feel like I am missing something. Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:34:58 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Bzzt.. not true, Silver Shadow. PLEASE dont believe that the > >human eye can only distinguish up to 30fps, and most importantly > >PLEASE dont re-hash this (incorrect) usenet legend that seems to > >pop up every two or three months. > > > >Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish > >above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then > >set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference. > > ROFL! You must work for Compaq! > > You ought to take a look at http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm > to understand the differences between 'frame' rate and 'refresh' rate. > > The same site will also explain why the human eye can not distinguish > the difference from 30fps and above. > > The issue of whether or not the human eye can see more than 30fps has > been discussed for years, and game newsgroups often get filled up with > the same old arguments. The real edge truth however, is that when the > human eye sees 100fps (for example), it notices no difference to if it > were viewing 30fps. That's why a game running at 30fps will appear to > move very smoothly, whereas anything under will appear to flicker into > life, as lower frame rates appear as still images, rather than a > collection of still images which make up one large smooth image. > > > Best regards... > > "Lisa, if you don't like your job, you > don't strike - you just go in every day > and do it really half arsed! That's the American way!" > > - Homer J. Simpson

In article <[email hidden]> Silver Shadow <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:34:58 -0600, rrevved <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >>Bzzt.. not true, Silver Shadow. PLEASE dont believe that the >>human eye can only distinguish up to 30fps, and most importantly >>PLEASE dont re-hash this (incorrect) usenet legend that seems to >>pop up every two or three months. >> >>Heres a tip for you. If you think the human eye cant distinguish >>above 30fps, then set your monitors refresh rate to 60hz and then >>set it to 85hz. Let us know if you can tell the difference. > > The issue of whether or not the human eye can see more than 30fps has > been discussed for years, and game newsgroups often get filled up with > the same old arguments. The real edge truth however, is that when the > human eye sees 100fps (for example), it notices no difference to if it > were viewing 30fps. That's why a game running at 30fps will appear to > move very smoothly, whereas anything under will appear to flicker into > life, as lower frame rates appear as still images, rather than a > collection of still images which make up one large smooth image.

I must concur with the other posters that claim that the human eye can see more than 30 fps. I have been told by my eye-doctor (what's it called) that the integration time for the human eye is about 0.1 seconds. So the human could 'see' 100 actual fps. The myth about the human eye not being able to distinguish more than 30 fps comes from the fact that television is 30 fps, (25 fps in Europe) and movies are 24 fps and they all 'look' fluid. I say 'look' because if you look real close, you _will_ see the actual frames. The fact that 24 fps looks fluid comes from the fact that the cameras used to record the film is using a 1/24 second shutter time, making fast action blurred (motion blur of the next gen voodoo cards). So get your facts straight. Dennis.