Prior to taking the big plunge I was wondering if there are
any showstoppers with running F1GP under Windows 95.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
>Prior to taking the big plunge I was wondering if there are
>any showstoppers with running F1GP under Windows 95.
It works just fine. Since the very beginning, I've run F1GP from Win95
without any problem. With 25 fps my 486 DX2/66 runs with 70-80%
processor occupancy (according to F1GP) and that is with all details
and texture turned on.
It also work fine in os/2. I can run it in a window,
capture a screen shoot and paste it into an ICON for
the desktop!
> >Prior to taking the big plunge I was wondering if there are
> >any showstoppers with running F1GP under Windows 95.
> It works just fine. Since the very beginning, I've run F1GP from Win95
> without any problem. With 25 fps my 486 DX2/66 runs with 70-80%
> processor occupancy (according to F1GP) and that is with all details
> and texture turned on.
Does it run better than it used to under DOS?
Joe
Quoted text (9 lines)
>> >Prior to taking the big plunge I was wondering if there are >> >any showstoppers with running F1GP under Windows 95. >> It works just fine. Since the very beginning, I've run F1GP from Win95 >> without any problem. With 25 fps my 486 DX2/66 runs with 70-80% >> processor occupancy (according to F1GP) and that is with all details >> and texture turned on. >Does it run better than it used to under DOS?: >
: >> >Prior to taking the big plunge I was wondering if there are
: >> >any showstoppers with running F1GP under Windows 95.
: >
: >> It works just fine. Since the very beginning, I've run F1GP from Win95
: >> without any problem. With 25 fps my 486 DX2/66 runs with 70-80%
: >> processor occupancy (according to F1GP) and that is with all details
: >> and texture turned on.
: >
: >
: >Does it run better than it used to under DOS?
: >
: Well, I would say that there is no real difference even though there
: is less processor occupancy in DOS. But what you can not do in DOS is
: to, during a race or qualifying, PAUSE the game and switch to an
: analyzing program like GPA (Grand Prix Analyser) running in Windows to
: check out how good (or bad) your last lap really was.
Yes, but I've been doing that under 3.1 for months - Win 95 isn't the
only way to do that.
--Brian Ferguson | "When I'm racing, I'm alive. | LFRS '95-96
--Newmarket, ON, CAN | Everything else is just | Uranus-Nissan
--
>>Does it run better than it used to under DOS?
>Well, I would say that there is no real difference even though there
>is less processor occupancy in DOS. But what you can not do in DOS is
>to, during a race or qualifying, PAUSE the game and switch to an
>analyzing program like GPA (Grand Prix Analyser) running in Windows to
>check out how good (or bad) your last lap really was.
I haven't noticed any difference in occupancy but like Win3.1 the
fade routine is almost instantaneous (of course, Win3.1 also works
for switching back to analyzers too).
One brief mention; do NOT use the "protected" option in the memory
tab of the properties dialog, or the TSRs won't work.
-- Gizmo
http://www.mal.com/~dgymer/
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Launchpad is an experimental internet BBS. The views of its users do not
necessarily represent those of UNC-Chapel Hill, OIT, or the SysOps.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
