NFS2 - BRILLIANT!

Hi, Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The graphics are mind-blowing. They are very sharp and richly detailed (better than Monaco in GP2), plus an illusion of speed par excellence. Granted, I am using a 200MMX system, but this game really flies. No other game gives you the feel of 300+kph (which is faster than an F1 car down Hockenheim, is this for real?), but you really feel like you're flying along, and with everything so pin-sharp. The circuits are wonderful. Cambered sweepers with incredible changes of elevation. Much more thrilling than the NFS circuits. I had wondered why wouldn't they do a GT1 sim (so we can race these cars in a `proper' sim environment, qualifying et al), but no series in the world has such beautiful tracks. The test track has banking where the apron area is flat (gives you problems like the NASCAR/ IRL race at Texas(I think)), for NASCAR fans - you can even see planes taking off and landing! Some of the advanced tracks are so delightful to drive, sort of like what Papy would like us to experience in the tracks of yore with their upcoming sim. TO complement this, you get an improved car physics model. This is no GP2, but the Lotus GT1 handles very well, probably closest to the race car. Very responsive under cornering and breaking. You do get wheel spin under accleration (wish they could have incorporated the GP2 clutch feature), and the rear does tend to break away under heavy braking. And, probably after requests from the sim community, a `sorta' setup is incorporated. Brake bias, downforce and ratios can be adjusted in steps of 3. Not a lot of precision there, but the differences in setup are easily observed. Some of the cars (the bigger V10/12 stuff) handle like bollocks, probably to represent the trade-off vis-a-vis power. There is a bonus track discussed in the manual, which you get,as before, after winning the tourney. I wish that the time of day feature had been implemented though. Strange how it wasn't since it was an SE feature. I was worried about my GP1/ CH Pedal compatibility after coming across some posts in this newsgroup. I have it plugged into the SB16 port. Works very well in my system. I've not really seen a game which screams along on my system like NFS2. Sure ICR2-3D is pretty quick, but this is not only fluid, but luscious too. Never mind GP2. So it looks like I'll be taking a little hiatus from my 97 GP2 season to enjoy myself with NFS2. (damned that this came in the middle of my exams...) Hope you'll enjoy it too, Stanley Chan

F1 car at Hockenheim = 208 - 217mph which is 333 - 344kph... Otherwise, thanks for the review. Sounds like NFS2 might be a fun distraction.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > No > > other game gives you the feel of 300+kph (which is faster than an F1 car > > down Hockenheim, is this for real?) > F1 car at Hockenheim = 208 - 217mph which is 333 - 344kph... > Otherwise, thanks for the review. Sounds like NFS2 might be a fun > distraction.

Coulthard was somewhere between 345 and 350 kph in last years Hockenheim GP. Torgeir, Norway

Quoted text (41 lines)

> >Hi, > >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The > >graphics are mind-blowing. > <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2> > Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you > will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game. > I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS. > *My thoughts: > Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D) > Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS. > Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly. > Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS. > Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE > Value = 'nuf sed > Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This > is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot. > * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews: > - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic ) > - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison > to the very nice original NFS. > - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate. > - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles. > * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS > and were hoping for more of the same. > - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD. > - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS. > - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon . > MyTwoCents > ______________________________________________________________ > *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! *** > NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me. > ______________________________________________________________

Hi, I would have to agree what a disappointment it is. At least they let you "paint" your car with a different color. I liked the split screen racing mode so you could race somebody without another computer, but I imagine you would need Stanley's machine to run this with all the details set to "high". NFS II could be called Screamer 3, but that would be insulting to Screamer 2. NFS II belongs in the same class (dumpster) with Test Drive:Off Road. John Bard

Actually once you get the steering down it can be a fun game. You really have to throw the cars into the turns(except the lotus gt1) The cars steering is controlled more by your throttle inputs and braking than actually carving a turn with the wheel only. The steering is still alittle quick for me but I'm getting used to it. BTW Who are these people in the Track Records screens cause they are slow!!! The only ones faster than my times are the records in arcade mode!

Quoted text (41 lines)

> >Hi, > >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The > >graphics are mind-blowing. > <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2> > Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you > will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game. > I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS. > *My thoughts: > Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D) > Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS. > Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly. > Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS. > Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE > Value = 'nuf sed > Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This > is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot. > * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews: > - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic ) > - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison > to the very nice original NFS. > - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate. > - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles. > * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS > and were hoping for more of the same. > - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD. > - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS. > - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon . > MyTwoCents > ______________________________________________________________ > *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! *** > NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me. > ______________________________________________________________

I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm taking this one back.

Thanks for the sales pitch Buddy, Now I know it Must suck. Will not be buying any ***from EA, sorry. Nice job on NHL97 BTW...hehe.. NOT!!! More crap. Mr Bill

Quoted text (49 lines)

> > >Hi, > > >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The > > >graphics are mind-blowing. > > <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2> > > Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you > > will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game. > > I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS. > > *My thoughts: > > Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D) > > Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS. > > Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly. > > Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS. > > Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE > > Value = 'nuf sed > > Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This > > is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot. > > * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews: > > - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic ) > > - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison > > to the very nice original NFS. > > - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate. > > - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles. > > * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS > > and were hoping for more of the same. > > - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD. > > - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS. > > - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon . > > MyTwoCents > > ______________________________________________________________ > > *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! *** > > NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me. > > ______________________________________________________________ > I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even > close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond > Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its > almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't > feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know > if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm > taking this one back.

My mistake. Unlike MTM or I76, you have to change your desktop settings to 640 x 480 before starting the game. Once I figured that out framerate was fine.

You are absolutely right. Once I figured that out, the game became much more fun. I actually like that aspect because that is the way that mid or rear engine cars actually behave. That is the main reason that the Porsche 911 was my favorite car to drive in NFS1. I too disliked the game when I first got it because it was not as much like the first one as I thought it was going to be. But after playing it for almost a week, I have to say that I like it better than NFS. The sounds are still lame, but the driving model is good and the sensation of speed is excellent. You just have to give it a chance. I think that if another company had released it under another name and it was not connected with the first NFS in any way, people would be raving about it. It just isn't what a lot of people expected.

>* My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS > and were hoping for more of the same. >- If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD. >- If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS. >- If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon . Well, this righteous 3d owner thinks it's ludicrous for them to ignore the 3d card market. I guess they just expect that their customers to have a P200 and higher to achieve decent framerates... I have no intention of buying a racing sim that doesn't support my R3D. --kodiak --- [space is for spammers... sentients wishing to respond should take out any spaces in my address]

IS NFS2 WIN95 ONLY?????

Quoted text (48 lines)

>> >Hi, >> >Just spent 3 hours with NFS2. Kudos to EA Sports on a job well done. The >> >graphics are mind-blowing. >> <snipped Stanley's glowing review of NFS2> >> Stanley, while I am happy that you are enjoying NFS2, I am afraid that you >> will be one of the few to praise this _incredibly_ lame sequel of a "brilliant" game. >> I, too, was e***d about this sequel. I loved NFS. >> *My thoughts: >> Frame Rate = O.K.-POOR (my system=P166/MatroxMill/32MB/512KPLBC/M3D) >> Graphics = O.K. if you like arcade tracks as opposed to the original NFS. >> Track Design = POOR (Silly).... actually, _incredibly_ poor and silly. >> Driveability = POOR in comparison to NFS. >> Player immersion/Suspension of disbelief/***iveness = SLIM to NONE >> Value = 'nuf sed >> Any comparison to the original NFS/GP2/ICR2 etc. etc. are ridiculous. This >> is an arcade game and a VERY BAD arcade game to boot. >> * My prediction of Game Magazine reviews: >> - Average overall rating = 3/5 stars or 65% ( I may be overly optimistic ) >> - Reasons for the 'zines rating will be as mentioned above, and a comparison >> to the very nice original NFS. >> - Comments will be made about the major (failed) attempt at arcade-i-ness and the poor framerate. >> - Another gripe will be the value of the game in comparison to other available titles. >> * My final advice: Avoid it like the plague, _particularly_ if you liked original NFS >> and were hoping for more of the same. >> - If you want arcade driving now. Buy POD or MTM. Actually, just buy POD. >> - If you want more realism, buy ICR2/Nascar2/GP2 or the ORIGINAL version of NFS. >> - If you want to wait for something new, look for X-Car / Psygnosis F1 / Carmageddon . >> MyTwoCents >> ______________________________________________________________ >> *** I know it's true because I heard it on Usenet! *** >> NOTE!! - PLEASE REMOVE "NOSPAM" from my address to email me. >> ______________________________________________________________ >I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even >close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond >Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its >almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't >feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know >if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm >taking this one back.

>IS NFS2 WIN95 ONLY????? Yes. Unfortunately. I think that is the primary source of the slow graphics. Win95 promised to be such a great *** OS and it just ain't so. ********************************************** Todd Walker T-Type on IRC Homepage: http://twalker.d2g.com 1986 Buick Regal T-Type **********************************************

YES - which is good and bad. IT did finally make me go in and configure my wheel properly in Win95

Very true Todd. People need to play the game for longer than 30 min. to really feel the potential of the car models. It can be quite fun, I just wish the 911turbo was in it!!!

i am really satisfied with nfs2's speed in win95. i am running on p166, matrox mill, 32mb ram ... and it has very good framerate with everything turned on! (that's with traffic .. etc) dunno what everybody is ***ing about! nfs2 is a good sequel ... it's just the tracks that suck! car feel & stats need some improvement. maybe EA should've consulted Road & Track (like NFS) to get better car dynamics, etc... --ray

> Very true Todd. People need to play the game for longer than 30 min. to > really feel the potential of the car models. It can be quite fun, I just > wish the 911turbo was in it!!! Yes! I hope EA or somebody else would make a patch to import cars from NFS to NFS2. Remember how the old Test Drive games from Accolade had extension disks available, with more cars and tracks? One of those wouls really make this game the bomb!

Speed is no problem on my P166 either. I agree that the tracks leave something to be desired. I wish they had put some road tracks in, like the coastal and alpine tracks from NFS. At least the circuits are long and have traffic. But still, I hated the circuits in NFS, and I'm not totally satisfied with the circuits in NFS2. Overall, I'm satisfied with the game.

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even > > close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond > > Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its > > almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't > > feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know > > if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm > > taking this one back. > i am really satisfied with nfs2's speed in win95. i am running on p166, > matrox mill, 32mb ram ... and it has very good framerate with everything > turned on! (that's with traffic .. etc) dunno what everybody is ***ing > about! > nfs2 is a good sequel ... it's just the tracks that suck! car feel & > stats need some improvement. maybe EA should've consulted Road & Track > (like NFS) to get better car dynamics, etc... > --ray

This is one game that cries out for hardware acceleration. Not so much for better frame rates, though faster is better (it is called Need for *SPEED*, after all), but to get rid of all that horrid pixelation. Please, please do at least a Direct3D version. Please. A 3Dfx version would be great, too. And better tracks would be nice. Most of the ones in NFSII really do suck.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > > I'd have to agree with you. As much as I loved NFS, this is not even > > > close to being as good. On a Micron P200 with 32MB of RAM, Diamond > > > Stealth with 4MB and a 12X CD the frame rate sucks so badly that its > > > almost unplayable. After the money I spent on this computer I don't > > > feel like I should have to turn down any graphic settings. I don't know > > > if its EA's fault or Windows 95's (I hate Win95 for games), but I'm > > > taking this one back. > > i am really satisfied with nfs2's speed in win95. i am running on p166, > > matrox mill, 32mb ram ... and it has very good framerate with everything > > turned on! (that's with traffic .. etc) dunno what everybody is ***ing > > about! > > nfs2 is a good sequel ... it's just the tracks that suck! car feel & > > stats need some improvement. maybe EA should've consulted Road & Track > > (like NFS) to get better car dynamics, etc... > > --ray > This is one game that cries out for hardware acceleration. Not so much > for better frame rates, though faster is better (it is called Need for > *SPEED*, after all), but to get rid of all that horrid pixelation. > Please, please do at least a Direct3D version. Please. A 3Dfx version > would be great, too. > And better tracks would be nice. Most of the ones in NFSII really do > suck.

NFS2 is Direct3d -- ===== Are you concerned about the high cost of Long Term Care for your parents, a friend, a family member or yourself? You probably should be ... the average cost of a 3 year LTC stay is over $150,000 !! Have you ever considered private Long Term Care Insurance? Visit the

>NFS2 is Direct3d Really? That makes it's performance all the more horrendous, since I have a 3D card (albeit not the fastest one) on a P200, and even with graphics detail set low I couldn't drive with the***pit on. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >NFS2 is Direct3d > Really? That makes it's performance all the more horrendous, since I > have a 3D card (albeit not the fastest one) on a P200, and even with > graphics detail set low I couldn't drive with the***pit on. > Joe McGinn > =================================================== > Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 > http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ > ===================================================

I am able to drive just fine. I have somewhat less than the game requirements. I even won the tournement. I have a P166 non MMX, 32 MB RAM, 2.5 GB WD drive, 162 MB WD 2.5" drive, 2.0 GB Maxtor drive, 345 MB Maxtor drive, Creative Labs 2x CD, SB16 Plug and Pray, Diamond Stealth SE. I know for a fact that they require a 4x CD, but when I did the install I did the maximum install. When I play the game all the graphics are cranked, but the view distance is set to medium (where it was set when I installed the game). The only time when I the games is unplayable is when Winblows 95 decides it wants to access the hard drives for no reason. I just hit escape and wait for them to stop, about three minutes later I can continue racing. I leave the dash on and there is no decrease in performace when I have the dash on or when I play outside the car. You have a faster computer than I do and I have no trouble playing the game. It sounds like there is something wrong with your setup or the computer. This is just me $0.02 worth matt --

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >NFS2 is Direct3d > Really? That makes it's performance all the more horrendous, since I > have a 3D card (albeit not the fastest one) on a P200, and even with > graphics detail set low I couldn't drive with the***pit on. > Joe McGinn > =================================================== > Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 > http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ > ===================================================

It's DirectX, not Direct3D.

>You have a faster computer than I do and I have no trouble playing the >game. It sounds like there is something wrong with your setup or the >computer. >This is just me $0.02 worth God I wish I had a dime for every MORON who says "there's something wrong with your computer" to people who aren't happy with the frame rate of a game. I'd be richer than Bill Gates. Read my lips. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY COMPUTER OR SETUP. Every other game - including DirectX3 titles like I76 - works fine (not to mention the original NFS which is smooth as silk on this computer). NFS2 is simply an extremely poorly performing piece of software. I have a university degree in computer science and over ten years experience developing PC applications, in assembly language, C, C++, VB, and every other language and tool you can think of. I know what I'm talking about. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >You have a faster computer than I do and I have no trouble playing the > >game. It sounds like there is something wrong with your setup or the > >computer. > >This is just me $0.02 worth > God I wish I had a dime for every MORON who says "there's something > wrong with your computer" to people who aren't happy with the frame > rate of a game. I'd be richer than Bill Gates. > Read my lips. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY COMPUTER OR SETUP. Every > other game - including DirectX3 titles like I76 - works fine (not to > mention the original NFS which is smooth as silk on this computer). > NFS2 is simply an extremely poorly performing piece of software. > I have a university degree in computer science and over ten years > experience developing PC applications, in assembly language, C, C++, > VB, and every other language and tool you can think of. I know what > I'm talking about. > Joe McGinn > =================================================== > Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 > http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ > ===================================================

I just cranked up the view distance from medium to far. The game ran just as smooth as the original NFS. I played with all the graphics turned to the max, full grid, and the dash on. The only thing that was turned off was the music. I can't stand to race with music. matt --

>I just cranked up the view distance from medium to far. The game ran >just as smooth as the original NFS. No, it didn't. NFSII is AT LEAST twice as slow as NFS 1 and SE. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >I just cranked up the view distance from medium to far. The game ran > >just as smooth as the original NFS. > No, it didn't. NFSII is AT LEAST twice as slow as NFS 1 and SE. > Joe McGinn > =================================================== > Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 > http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ > ===================================================

Whatever you say, you know best. Like I said before I have the max install done and thus the CD is almost useless. The hard drive is much faster than the CD. But I am sure that you know more than me. Have you installed the whole game to disk. Probably not. You probably think that your CD-ROM will read as fast as your hard disk. I have found a very good motherboard though and that could be the difference. I am also not running 3D graphics which will slow down the game, from what I have heard. I refuse to buy a 3D card until they settle on one standard, like 3Dfx or the other one. --

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >Whatever you say, you know best. Like I said before I have the max > >install done and thus the CD is almost useless. The hard drive is much > >faster than the CD. But I am sure that you know more than me. Have you > >installed the whole game to disk. Probably not. You probably think > >that your CD-ROM will read as fast as your hard disk. I have found a > >very good motherboard though and that could be the difference. > I think the problem is that, you run the game without the Opponents, > or maybe just with one of them. > Once I turned off the opponents, and added the traffic instead, the > game now runs almost like the original NFS, but not as > fast . > I just think EA, really made a stupid mistake, by addding all that > extra stufff, Buildings, trees, and etc. It's all unnessary. > I just want good physics, who cares about beautifull graphics.

I run the game with a full grid most of the time. There is some decrease in performance when all of them are displayed on the screen, but that is short lived. When going for a track record I turn the opponents off. I guess that I am not as demanding as other people. I know that it is almost impossible for a computer screen to make you feel like you are going 150+mph. Some of the complaints I have heard is that the frame rates suck and the scenery goes backwards at high speeds. The scenery did this on the original NFS. matt --

I think the problem is that, you run the game without the Opponents, or maybe just with one of them. Once I turned off the opponents, and added the traffic instead, the game now runs almost like the original NFS, but not as fast . I just think EA, really made a stupid mistake, by addding all that extra stufff, Buildings, trees, and etc. It's all unnessary. I just want good physics, who cares about beautifull graphics.

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> I just cranked up the view distance from medium to far. The game ran >> just as smooth as the original NFS. I played with all the graphics >> turned to the max, full grid, and the dash on. The only thing that was >> turned off was the music. I can't stand to race with music. >I have to agree with the rest of the posters here, the framerate >in NFS2 is not good on my machine (6x86 PR200, STB ET6000, 32M, >75MHz MB). Not even close to the original NFS, even with the >screen size down to medium. Not that I doubt you Matt, if you >say the frame rate is similar to NFS that removes a measure of >subjectivity, I just wonder what it is about your machine that >makes it perform so well. Have you done any tweaking of the >driver settings that may have made a difference?

Some of your problem comes from the fact that your Cyrix processor lacks the FPU performance of a comparable Intel processor. The Cyrix is a faster chip, except for floating point operations. That is the trade-off. ********************************************** Todd Walker T-Type on IRC Homepage: http://twalker.d2g.com 1986 Buick Regal T-Type **********************************************

>Whatever you say, you know best. Like I said before I have the max >install done and thus the CD is almost useless. The hard drive is much >faster than the CD. But I am sure that you know more than me. Have you >installed the whole game to disk. Yes I did. Max install. Performance still sucks. NFS 2 performance sucks eggs. It's a fact, live with it. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

>Sorry, incorrect. >Scenery always appears to go _forward_ in NFS I. Maybe the NFS 1 team travelled back in time, it was actually NFS 3 or 4. ;-) Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

> I >know that it is almost impossible for a computer screen to make you feel >like you are going 150+mph. Not at all - NFS 1 and SE achieved this. Again, just not the case - it's the ROAD that runs backwards in NFS 2, not the scenery. Again, NFS 1 did not have this problem. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Some of the complaints I have heard is that > >the frame rates suck and the scenery goes backwards at high speeds. The > >scenery did this on the original NFS. > Sorry, incorrect. > Scenery always appears to go _forward_ in NFS I. > _________________________________________________________

Sorry, incorrect. The scenery *can* go backwards in NFS I. I just watched it do it again. Pretty irritating it is, too.

>The scenery *can* go backwards in NFS I. I just watched it do it again. >Pretty irritating it is, too. No it can't. This is pure bullshit. Backwards roads and scenery are and EXCLUSIVE "feature" of NFS 2. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >The scenery *can* go backwards in NFS I. I just watched it do it again. > >Pretty irritating it is, too. > No it can't. This is pure bullshit. Backwards roads and scenery are > and EXCLUSIVE "feature" of NFS 2. > Joe McGinn > =================================================== > Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 > http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ > ===================================================

Gosh. I sure appreciate being called a liar on the Internet. What are you, some kind of moron? I ran NFS I, I watched the scenery go backwards, then reported it to this newsgroup. You are asserting that something you have not observed can't happen. I'm telling you I observed it. Also, moron, I think you meant "an," not "and."

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >Gosh. I sure appreciate being called a liar on the Internet. What are > >you, some kind of moron? I ran NFS I, I watched the scenery go > >backwards, then reported it to this newsgroup. > >You are asserting that something you have not observed can't happen. I'm > >telling you I observed it. > And I still say bullshit. I have played hundreds of ours with NFS. The > scenery does NOT have the "going backwards" flaw of NF 2. Period. > Joe McGinn > =================================================== > Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 > http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ > ===================================================

There's a big difference between "can't happen" and "haven't seen it." You can say bullshit all you want, and it won't change the facts. I have seen it. I can reproduce it. It does happen. So, you write for a living? I think you meant "hours" rather than "ours."

>Gosh. I sure appreciate being called a liar on the Internet. What are >you, some kind of moron? I ran NFS I, I watched the scenery go >backwards, then reported it to this newsgroup. >You are asserting that something you have not observed can't happen. I'm >telling you I observed it. And I still say bullshit. I have played hundreds of ours with NFS. The scenery does NOT have the "going backwards" flaw of NF 2. Period. Joe McGinn =================================================== Author of Inside LotusScript, available August 1997 http://www.browsebooks.com/McGinn/ ===================================================

>There's a big difference between "can't happen" and "haven't seen it." >You can say bullshit all you want, and it won't change the facts. I have >seen it. I can reproduce it. It does happen. OK, smart guy, why didn't you answer the questions put to you in this thread? Which track? Which part of it and what speed? Put up or shut up. Joe

The best place to see it, for me, is the Alpine track. Both the track and a tunnel go backwards. As in NFS2, it appears to be dependent on both overall system speed (CPU + Video performance, etc.) and car speed. It is not an easy effect to achieve, since you have to get just the right speed for your system's characteristics. In NFS2, it happens all the time, even on my PPro. It's nothing more or less complicated than a strobe effect on the scenery/textures. In NFSI, I can make it happen practically every time on an old P90, and almost never on my PPro 200. Frankly, I don't care if anyone believes me, and I marvel at the vehemence with which people are willing to deny the facts. I own and enjoy both games. In point of fact, I prefer NFSI, and I'm not trying to slag the game. I've probably spent more hours playing it than any other driving sim/game I have. The issue for me is that some people are asserting, without any evidence to support the assertion, that something I (and at least one other person, the one who started this digression) have actually observed cannot happen. Aside from the obvious flaws in this type of reasoning (i.e., I haven't seen it, ergo it can't happen), the initial reply to my statement that I have observed this effect was, and I quote, "bullshit." It was, if nothing else, rude.