RBR? TI4600?

I saw someone say that they thought it should have the 5xxx cards to work well? Anyone lese on antique gfx cards trying this game out?

"Plowboy2" <stingre.removethis_@yahoo!.removeit> wrote in news:azp%c.43179$wu.10219@okepread04: > I saw someone say that they thought it should have the 5xxx cards to > work well? Anyone lese on antique gfx cards trying this game out? > > > I have a ti4200 with 128mb- had a couple of stutters, and to be fair I've only been on the rally school stages so far, but it seems fine. running 1024x768. Your mileage may vary :-) cheers John

"Plowboy2" <stingre.removethis_@yahoo!.removeit> wrote in message news:azp%c.43179$wu.10219@okepread04... >I saw someone say that they thought it should have the 5xxx cards to work >well? Anyone lese on antique gfx cards trying this game out? > I have a t4200 (128 meg). Seems fine with my Pentium 4 2.2 There is one setting in the RichardBurnsRally.ini file that some say cures stuttering. It should look like this, WaitRetrace = false I also turn shadows off, as they are frame killers. I have the game set at 1024x768x32 with everything on "high" and shadows off. You might try also lowering "particles", as, like "shadows", "particles" is a frame-rate killer. The game runs pretty decently for me. I wouldn't really call a t4200 or t4600 an ancient card. A Geforce 3, yes. :) Alanb

Thanks Alan & JM... Ill be getting it I think... "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eQr%c.144454$Fg5.134874@attbi_s53...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > "Plowboy2" <stingre.removethis_@yahoo!.removeit> wrote in message > news:azp%c.43179$wu.10219@okepread04... >>I saw someone say that they thought it should have the 5xxx cards to work >>well? Anyone lese on antique gfx cards trying this game out? >> > > I have a t4200 (128 meg). Seems fine with my Pentium 4 2.2 > > There is one setting in the RichardBurnsRally.ini file that some say cures > stuttering. It should look like this, > > WaitRetrace = false > > I also turn shadows off, as they are frame killers. I have the game set > at 1024x768x32 with everything on "high" and shadows off. You might try > also lowering "particles", as, like "shadows", "particles" is a frame-rate > killer. > > The game runs pretty decently for me. I wouldn't really call a t4200 or > t4600 an ancient card. A Geforce 3, yes. :) > > Alanb > > >

Those cards are still monters in directx 8.1. "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message de news: eQr%c.144454$Fg5.134874@attbi_s53...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "Plowboy2" <stingre.removethis_@yahoo!.removeit> wrote in message > news:azp%c.43179$wu.10219@okepread04... > >I saw someone say that they thought it should have the 5xxx cards to work > >well? Anyone lese on antique gfx cards trying this game out? > > > > I have a t4200 (128 meg). Seems fine with my Pentium 4 2.2 > > There is one setting in the RichardBurnsRally.ini file that some say cures > stuttering. It should look like this, > > WaitRetrace = false > > I also turn shadows off, as they are frame killers. I have the game set

at

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 1024x768x32 with everything on "high" and shadows off. You might try also > lowering "particles", as, like "shadows", "particles" is a frame-rate > killer. > > The game runs pretty decently for me. I wouldn't really call a t4200 or > t4600 an ancient card. A Geforce 3, yes. :) > > Alanb > > >

I'm running a ti4600 on a P4 3.2Ghz. It was running ok, but with the occsaional jerkiness when panning around (hairpins) or with a long field of view (Canberra). This started to bother me as my times improved - especially in Australia I found that things seemed to be happening in slow motion. Turning graphics to low and disabling the AA didn't help, so now I'm running at 800x600 and things are very smooth. To be honest, RBR works very well in 800x600 - much better than most when comparing to 1024.768. However, its time for a new graphics card. I'm tempted to go for one of hte top of the line cards (I bought the ti4600 the week it first appeared in stock), but am wondering whether to hold off until I get a PCI-X system. "Plowboy2" <stingre.removethis_@yahoo!.removeit> wrote in message news:azp%c.43179$wu.10219@okepread04... >I saw someone say that they thought it should have the 5xxx cards to work >well? Anyone lese on antique gfx cards trying this game out? >

> However, its time for a new graphics card. I'm tempted to go for one of > hte top of the line cards (I bought the ti4600 the week it first appeared > in stock), but am wondering whether to hold off until I get a PCI-X > system. From what I read PCI-X is useless unless you are doing video editing and want no hiccups while playing around with huge files... doesnt really seem useful for games.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 02:33:26 -0400, "fredrickson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> However, its time for a new graphics card. I'm tempted to go for one of >> hte top of the line cards (I bought the ti4600 the week it first appeared >> in stock), but am wondering whether to hold off until I get a PCI-X >> system. > >From what I read PCI-X is useless unless you are doing video editing and >want no hiccups while playing around with huge files... doesnt really seem >useful for games.

Both yes and no. It's not useless as such, just that the current crop of cards(X800, GF6800) doesn't necessarily utilize it to the fullest. One of the main features of PCIe is that the upload and download bandwidth from the card to the computer is the same. That could conceivably spawn some cool programming tricks and features for upcoming cards. Waiting to get PCIe would be playing it safe for possible graphics upgrades also. And oh yeah, PCI-X isn't the same as PCI-express(PCIe), they're separate technologies.