WC vs ICR

Having spent the last week going back and forth between WC and ICR, I offer the following: ICR - a more accurate physical model of the vehicle and the track, good for getting the idea of what it is really like to drive such a thing and what it is like to set up for different conditions, however, version 1.02 has quite a few not so good features, such as; on a 486DX-33 the graphics are only acceptable when racing alone, driving in a pack of cars results in choppy graphics with detail fading to the point where a crash is almost certain since depth and movement are no longer understandable, also - cannot disable joystick in menus. ICR can really only be used to drive these tracks solo, and race against the clock (gets boring after a while). WC - still the best all around racing game, not an accurate physical model, but very good at giving the impression of driving the real thing. Graphics are smooth at 20 fps and do not degrade in a pack of cars.

Thats with automatic detail on. You can turn that off. If you like the graphics in WC, have your tried degrading the graphics in Indycar to that level? Try that if you don't find the speed acceptable. With a coupl things turned off I find the graphics fine on my 486/33. I like WC too, but it is TOO EASY. Joe -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Computer Networking Specialist National Institutes of Health Distributed Systems Branch Bldg. 12A Room 3039 Fax: 301-402-1620 Bethesda, MD. USA 20892 Voice: 301-402-1802 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "It is better to go into a corner slow and come out fast, than to go in fast and come out dead." Sterling Moss "I'm not a racecar driver, but I play one on the computer"

Your points are well taken. Unfortunately I have a 486DX2 66mhz. The game is very smooth for me. I still have 4 MB of RAM and version 1.02 will not give textured track & grass. I suggest going into the "detail" part of the program and setup for manual graphics detail. You should be able to get a detail setting somewhat similar to WC. Framerate on my machine is equal for ICR and WC. Also try running ICR by pypassing your startup files ( f5 if you use DOS 6). I personaly feel this improves the games performance. That is why WC will stay on my machine until a better Formula One game/sim comes around...

Quoted text (15 lines)

|> > ICR - a more accurate physical model of the vehicle and the track, good for |> > getting the idea of what it is really like to drive such a thing and |> > what it is like to set up for different conditions, however, version 1.02 has |> > quite a few not so good features, such as; on a 486DX-33 the graphics are only |> > acceptable when racing alone, driving in a pack of cars results in choppy |> > graphics with detail fading to the point where a crash is almost certain since |> > depth and movement are no longer understandable, also - cannot disable |> > joystick in menus. ICR can really only be used to drive these tracks solo, |> > and race against the clock (gets boring after a while). |> |> Thats with automatic detail on. You can turn that off. If you like the |> graphics in WC, have your tried degrading the graphics in Indycar to that |> level? Try that if you don't find the speed acceptable. With a coupl things |> turned off I find the graphics fine on my 486/33. |>

Well, I'll have to agree with the first writer (and perhaps send a note to Papyrus about how disappointed I am). If I turn the graphics detail down to a level comparable to WC the action is still choppy in packs. I can run 25 fps in WC if I turn off the textured fills (which look cheesy anyway). At 25fps the "feel" is excellent and you can anticipate things much better. In IndyCar I often have to turn off some trackside objects to keep it at 15 fps in a pack of cars. I'm not impressed. After running WC at 25 fps, 15 fps looks like a 1909 silent movie and I find I keep making errors due to the choppiness of the animation. Note I am comparing the performance of the two programs on an identical machine. Yes, IndyCar has tremendous technical detail and real-world physics modelling, but they dropped the ball when they compromised graphics speed. I'll gladly do without the program checking my tire temperatures if I can get smooth animation!` Stephen

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Having spent the last week going back and forth between WC and ICR, I offer >the following: >ICR - a more accurate physical model of the vehicle and the track, good for >getting the idea of what it is really like to drive such a thing and >what it is like to set up for different conditions, however, version 1.02 has >quite a few not so good features, such as; on a 486DX-33 the graphics are only >acceptable when racing alone, driving in a pack of cars results in choppy >graphics with detail fading to the point where a crash is almost certain since >depth and movement are no longer understandable, also - cannot disable

You may want to set detail level manually. The same thing happens on my 486-50 as well. I'd like to keep details on the wall(so that I'll know when to brake) and texture mapping turned on, but I don't care too much for grand stand etc. You can also go with a pentium. :) I think I'll be glad that they designed their game for very high end hardware. This way, we can get more out of the game when we get faster machines few years from now. y.e.

Quoted text (17 lines)

>>Having spent the last week going back and forth between WC and ICR, I offer >>the following: >>ICR - a more accurate physical model of the vehicle and the track, good for >>getting the idea of what it is really like to drive such a thing and >>what it is like to set up for different conditions, however, version 1.02 has >>quite a few not so good features, such as; on a 486DX-33 the graphics are only >>acceptable when racing alone, driving in a pack of cars results in choppy >>graphics with detail fading to the point where a crash is almost certain since >>depth and movement are no longer understandable, also - cannot disable >You may want to set detail level manually. The same thing happens on my 486-50 >as well. I'd like to keep details on the wall(so that I'll know when to >brake) and texture mapping turned on, but I don't care too much for grand stand >etc. >You can also go with a pentium. :) I think I'll be glad that they designed >their game for very high end hardware. This way, we can get more out of the >game when we get faster machines few years from now.

I set the graphics on ICR manually. Using tires texture ( who wants hexagonal tires??), i like havinh horizon and car texture on but these aren't necessary. Don't play autoomatice details because the view always shifts to meet the frame rate. The game may look stark w/o all the texture but it's a racing game not some art show. Question: what would more RAM do to help with the game? More cars? Better movement? Just wondering. Pascal P.S. I play on a 486-25 and have played on a 486-50. The 50 was great with full detail etc... while the 25 needs a lot of trial and error in the texturing. Y A A A A A

It will allow for longer replays. It will also allow for full texturing if you have version 1.02. This version will limit some of the texturing, while guarenteeing that all 8 tracks can load. This is an automatic feature, even if you set graphics detail to manual.

>>Question: what would more RAM do to help with the game? More cars? >>Better movement? Just wondering. >It will allow for longer replays. It will also allow for full texturing if >you have version 1.02. This version will limit some of the texturing, while >guarenteeing that all 8 tracks can load. This is an automatic feature, even >if you set graphics detail to manual. Would it be feasible to have an option to ration your RAM between replays and graphics? If so, I'd be willing to sacrifice a long replay for more realistic driving. Jonathan

>Question: what would more RAM do to help with the game? More cars? >Better movement? Just wondering. > Pascal I run IC with a 486-33 with 8 megs of RAM. I can race in a full pack with the graphics at "full blast" without any degredation of the image. Frame refresh is very quick with little difference from "stripped" graphics. All tracks load up fine, even though Laguna Seca is the only one you _really_ need :-). Anyone found a setup that will run Laguna Seca without consistently scrubbing the tires? With turbo boost set at 4, I'm a long way from managing track record!!! Brian Miller Aerospace Engineering University of Southern California