Hi all,
Just a couple of questions;
I have version 1.0b of GP2. Is this the latest version???
I read a "rumour" on one of the link pages that GP3 is being worked on, but
that maybe there will be a patch to GP2 before then. Is this the case? If
so, will it address the frame rate problem?
The reason for these questions is that I love the game but can't stand
playing it with the options all turned off. I expected that with a P133
with 32mb ram and 3dblasterPCI that it would be a lot better. Estimated
frame rate of <8.0 in SVGA with all on I wouldn't think qualifies as
playable. I realise that if I turn everything off and go back to VGA I
could get higher frame rates...but hey, I'd like the game to be as fun as
possible.
Would appreciate any comments,
Thanks,
Phil.
> Hi all,
> Just a couple of questions;
> I have version 1.0b of GP2. Is this the latest version???
As far as I know
Philip, please send me that URL. I would like to ask that the author
take it off,
so he doesnt get anyone's hopes up. Microprose has stated there are NO
plans for an
update. Its unfortunate, because this SIM had alot of potiential. The
*** engine is
a slug for framerate. Microprose said NO for an update. In my book that
is unacceptable
and downright robbery. The sim is unfinished and Ill be sure to say NO
when they release their
next game.
Same here. Hell you might as well be playing GP1 with the details off!!
"8>{
As far as I know Microprose has never set foot in this news group.
MICROPROSE SUCKS!!
-David Gary-
With the 3D Blaster or any other Verite chipset, you have to manually
set the frame rate to a comfortable level. Eg. with my current setup,
I'm running on 18.2 fps, but the estimate is only 11.1. But I'm
comfortably under 100% for most of the race and that's all you're
looking for.
Stanley Chan
Quoted text (23 lines)
> Hi all, > Just a couple of questions; > I have version 1.0b of GP2. Is this the latest version??? > I read a "rumour" on one of the link pages that GP3 is being worked on, but > that maybe there will be a patch to GP2 before then. Is this the case? If > so, will it address the frame rate problem? > The reason for these questions is that I love the game but can't stand > playing it with the options all turned off. I expected that with a P133 > with 32mb ram and 3dblasterPCI that it would be a lot better. Estimated > frame rate of <8.0 in SVGA with all on I wouldn't think qualifies as > playable. I realise that if I turn everything off and go back to VGA I > could get higher frame rates...but hey, I'd like the game to be as fun as > possible. > Would appreciate any comments, > Thanks, > Phil.Quoted text (23 lines)
> Hi all, > Just a couple of questions; > I have version 1.0b of GP2. Is this the latest version??? > I read a "rumour" on one of the link pages that GP3 is being worked on, but > that maybe there will be a patch to GP2 before then. Is this the case? If > so, will it address the frame rate problem? > The reason for these questions is that I love the game but can't stand > playing it with the options all turned off. I expected that with a P133 > with 32mb ram and 3dblasterPCI that it would be a lot better. Estimated > frame rate of <8.0 in SVGA with all on I wouldn't think qualifies as > playable. I realise that if I turn everything off and go back to VGA I > could get higher frame rates...but hey, I'd like the game to be as fun as > possible. > Would appreciate any comments, > Thanks, > Phil.Thanks to the many people who emailed me suggestions.
It seems fair to dump the rumour of a patch to GP2 based on the general
responses.
Most people advised to just run it in DOS only, never in Win95, and set the
frame rate yourself to about 13 fps and turn off sky and mirror texture. I
tried the scitech display doctor [now that it supports verite chips] but it
made no noticeable frame rate difference at all. I am running the latest
official creative 73 bios and March 1997 creative 3dbpci drivers so maybe
that's why there was no appreciable difference.
I tried the frame set at 13fps and it works alright. It really does seem
that a P200 would be a reasonable bet for this [I can't believe it came out
so long ago when I checked and that the recommended hardware requirements
on the box would be so way out wrong].
Hopefully the newer version [whenever that is] will be better. But, based
on this experience though, I'm more likely to not buy GP3 and try out some
of the competitors, particularly if they support verite chips out of the
box. Guess I've been burnt by Microprose too many times.
I do have an email to Microprose support in at the moment, so I'll see if
they come up with anything constructive. If they do I'll post it here.
Phil.
I read indeed many times that people advise to run GP2
from DOS and not from Windows 95.
I use the game for more than 6 months now, and I 've
always launched it from Windows95. I never had any
problem.
I have a P200 with 32 MB Ram.
Any comments ?
Michel Driessen
Genk (Belgium)
Quoted text (13 lines)
> I read indeed many times that people advise to run GP2 > from DOS and not from Windows 95. > I use the game for more than 6 months now, and I 've > always launched it from Windows95. I never had any > problem. > I have a P200 with 32 MB Ram. > Any comments ? > Michel Driessen > Genk (Belgium)I have NT4.0 win95 and dos6.22 and always use the dos when I play gp2. I "feel"
better knowing that there is no stupid windows somewhere in the background. A
clean dos must (and does) give better performance although I run it on a
p200MMX, 32 mb RAM and matrox mill.4mb. Too bad gp2 doesnt support
MMX-technology - that would be a good update too. I just tried POD-racing
using MMX tech. and it runs soooo good. Totally different speedfeeling. Too bad
POD-racing is so bad as a game.
Ronny
Hi Michael,
With a fast machine and a decent amount of RAM you probably won't notice
any performance hit running under Win 95.
What some people (including myself) have encountered though is that GP2
will occasionally crash when saving setups / games / hotlaps etc when run
from W95. I've never had the problem when running from DOS so guess which
I use ;-)
But if you don't find any problems yourself, then "if it ain't broke -
don't fix it" <g>
Cheers,
Richard
Quoted text (21 lines)
>>I read indeed many times that people advise to run GP2 >>from DOS and not from Windows 95. >>I use the game for more than 6 months now, and I 've >>always launched it from Windows95. I never had any >>problem. >>I have a P200 with 32 MB Ram. >Hi Michael, >With a fast machine and a decent amount of RAM you probably won't notice >any performance hit running under Win 95. >What some people (including myself) have encountered though is that GP2 >will occasionally crash when saving setups / games / hotlaps etc when run >from W95. I've never had the problem when running from DOS so guess which >I use ;-) >But if you don't find any problems yourself, then "if it ain't broke - >don't fix it" <g>I haven't figured it out either, I always launch GP2 from Win95 and my
system is a P100 with 16 MB RAM!
Why all the complaints?
Alex
Quoted text (7 lines)
>I read indeed many times that people advise to run GP2 >from DOS and not from Windows 95. >I use the game for more than 6 months now, and I 've >always launched it from Windows95. I never had any >problem. >I have a P200 with 32 MB Ram. >Any comments ?Hi Alex,
Turn everything off then have a race. The 'feel' is totally different. The
sensation of speed completely more realistic. The gripe is that the game
was supposed to run on your machine at max frame rates. Also that there has
been no upgrade follow up from Micropro$e. You need a 166+ and good 2d
video card to get anything near max. This is NOT what Micropro$e said at
launch.
If you enjoy it I realise it is a matter of taste. I find it fun, but only
at 30-50% of the graphics potential. If it were to have done network and
faster graphics then it would have been fine.
Phil.
