Renewed interest in GP2- finally raced Monaco and it's a blast

Well, I've had GP2 for awhile now, and I've centered on a few tracks so that hopefully I would develop some sort of PC racing skills. (Imola, Magny Cours, Spa) I have been avoiding Monaco because of the frame rate issue (no comment needed) and it always made me mad because NFS looks better and I had to turn off so many things at Monaco even with a P200. Well, after this weekends rainy race at Monaco I figured I'd finally give it a serious shot. and this track is the coolest! I know that this post is like, duh, to a lot of you veterens but I had to say something. See, if you play race sims right, when you discover a *new* track it's suddenly like a new game. You know, who's keeping track of if the sky is on or how detailed the buildings are when you're supposed to be racing anyhow? I'd also like to say for the thousandth time that for me, GP2 is undoubtably the most realistic, most fun racing sim to date. (another duh) Thanks Raevyn

It's good to see someone enjoying Monaco! I also put off racing at Monaco because of frame rates but I did one thing which just makes racing at Monaco so exciting. I change to VGA mode and was able to run at 25.6 or more frame rates. That really 'change the taste of the cake'. I know it is a lot blockier than SVGA but the key to enjoying the GP2 is higher frame rates. When you racing (especially at ACE level), you hardly got time to enjoy the beautiful graphics in SVGA. You only got your eyes on the track and some important features for braking purposes.Let's hope GP3 is less machine-intensive...

Took your advice and yeh what a blast. Monaco was my favorite track in gp1 but have not played it in gp2 due to frame rates. I used to think VGA was not an option but after racing at Monaco at 25 fps under 100% occupancy with all graphics on Ive changed my mind. Hell it looks pretty good after a while. Todd.

>Let's hope GP3 is less machine-intensive... Why do you hope that? If anything, I firmly believe that games should continue to push the edge of the envelope in terms of available CPU-power. GP3 is probably 2 years off; do you think it's reasonable for the designers to limit themselves to running on a P6-200, when far more powerful machines will be available in the $1500-$2000 range? Given history, you won't get your wish... :) I can agree with the sentiment: "I hope that game XXX will run at 30+ fps on a $2000-$2500 machine when it's released..." ---Jim Sokoloff

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Well, I've had GP2 for awhile now, > and I've centered on a few tracks so that hopefully I would develop > some sort of PC racing skills. (Imola, Magny Cours, Spa) > I have been avoiding Monaco because of the frame rate issue (no > comment needed) and it always made me mad because NFS looks better and > I had to turn off so many things at Monaco even with a P200. > Well, after this weekends rainy race at Monaco I figured I'd finally > give it a serious shot. > and this track is the coolest! I know that this post is like, duh, to > a lot of you veterens but I had to say something. See, if you play > race sims right, when you discover a *new* track it's suddenly like a > new game. You know, who's keeping track of if the sky is on or how > detailed the buildings are when you're supposed to be racing anyhow? > I'd also like to say for the thousandth time that for me, GP2 is > undoubtably the most realistic, most fun racing sim to date. (another > duh) > Thanks > Raevyn

I had a similar experience this week. A year ago, I tried Fatal Racing (Whiplash in the U.S.) and I thought "this sux!!!". I had just bought a P166 with 32MB and a 2MB Diamond Stealth and the game (in SVGA full detail) jerked like hell. Anyway, just the other day I got a Diamond Monster 3D and it came with a special version of Fatal and it played like a dream, and looked amazing. Then I hooked it up with a Thrustmaster T2 I bought 7 months ago and it felt like I was playing coin-op daytona!!! I've played it for several days now, and it just gets more fun. Funny how such an old game can suddenly become interesting again.

>> I can agree with the sentiment: "I hope that game XXX will run at 30+ >> fps on a $2000-$2500 machine when it's released..." >You must be realy stupid!!! Those that know me well would likely disagree with that. No, I realize that not everyone can upgrade their system every year, but the simple facts are: a) The more complicated the game and graphics, the more CPU required. There's no magic bullet here. b) The industry doesn't stand still. If you write a game today with a 8MB P5-90 and no 3D card as your target system, your game will not look as good and will not have as many complicated features as someone else's game that was written to take advantage of the power available in a 32MB P6-200 with a Rendition or 3dfx card. c) Those who don't have the money to upgrade their systems, may not have the money to buy the game, and will resort to *ahem* other methods of obtaining it. You are free to not upgrade your system ever if that's what you choose, but don't expect game companies that are publishing complicated graphics-intensive, 3D immersive games to hold back just so a two or three year-old system can run them at full effect. ---Jim Sokoloff

: >Let's hope GP3 is less machine-intensive... : Why do you hope that? If anything, I firmly believe that games should : continue to push the edge of the envelope in terms of available : CPU-power. GP3 is probably 2 years off; do you think it's reasonable for : the designers to limit themselves to running on a P6-200, when far more : powerful machines will be available in the $1500-$2000 range? : Given history, you won't get your wish... :) : I can agree with the sentiment: "I hope that game XXX will run at 30+ : fps on a $2000-$2500 machine when it's released..." Jim, I think the point being made is that GP2 was not "optimized" when it came down to the graphics routines. Had the programmers taken the time to fully utilize vesa 2.0 in the graphic routines, I think the performance would have been decent enough. However, even at this late date increased CPU's and video cards are not really helping the performance due to the graphics routine bottle-neck in the code. Otherwise, I agree. If the program is one with great "replay" value (ala sims), let's have the released version work marginally on the average (or slightly above average) machines at the time. But, please, write the code so that one of the biggest bottlenecks (graphics) is optimized. Otherwise, improved hardware won't really enhance continued playability. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If he's in it for the money, and not the love of the sport, how do you explain the fact that he has been creating racing simulations for years, such as Revs for the BBC Micro? -- Dave Bowers

I totally agree with you. Geoff Crammond has always been on the cutting edge of racing simulations. The first racing game that supported two pc's connected in a nice way was Stunt Car Racer, I guess. It was his also. And it totally rocked when you linked THAT one! I guess what happened is that GP2 was just a little bit *too* complex for just one person (Crammond) and some helping hands to achieve. But MicroProse probably kept pushing (they wanted money!) and they were in charge, so that's what went wrong I *think*. I really think we shouldn't be too *** Crammond here... until you know *exactly* what happened, and none of you do (me neither). It's just a little bit more complex than most of the guys who keep on whining think. -- Formula T2 Upgrade Page - http://huizen.dds.nl/~jjcox

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> If you write a game today with a >>8MB P5-90 and no 3D card as your target system, your game will not >>look as good and will not have as many complicated features as someone >>else's game that was written to take advantage of the power available >>in a 32MB P6-200 with a Rendition or 3dfx card. >Sorry Jim, but I think being in the industry, allways on the cutting edge of >software and hardware, makes it hard for you to relate to average Joe end >user. If the game is optimized for the P90 then it WILL look better to the >guy with the P90, which is probably the ballpark most of us are in.

I can understand that, (in fact, I'm typing this post from the fastest computer I own, which is a P5-90...) However, I was originally replying to a post asking that GP3 be less CPU-intensive than GP2 is. I'm not sure that I can agree with the desire to stand still hardware-wise. Suppose GP3 comes out in 1999, do you think that a P5-90 will still be a reasonable machine to expect full featured, fluid, SVGA graphics. I don't, and that's what my post was referring to. I'd like to think that just about any game released today would work marginally acceptably on a P90 in VGA mode. (I don't know if GP2 does, because I've only played GP2 on a faster machine, and then only for 30 minutes or so.) It's unrealistic to expect game companies to hold the line on CPU just because you don't want to upgrade. Technology marches on; if it didn't, we'd all be playing games written for CGA, since at one time it was too expensive to upgrade to EGA graphics... ---Jim Sokoloff

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Subject: Re: Renewed interest in GP2- finally raced Monaco and it's a blast >Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:18:20 GMT > If you write a game today with a >8MB P5-90 and no 3D card as your target system, your game will not >look as good and will not have as many complicated features as someone >else's game that was written to take advantage of the power available >in a 32MB P6-200 with a Rendition or 3dfx card.

Sorry Jim, but I think being in the industry, allways on the cutting edge of software and hardware, makes it hard for you to relate to average Joe end user. If the game is optimized for the P90 then it WILL look better to the guy with the P90, which is probably the ballpark most of us are in. Well the lesson I'm slowly learning is that when something comes on the market I should wait five years before I actually buy it, because thats when I'll have the hardware to make use of all the features I'm paying for ! Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C.

I agree Monaco is THE circuit! esp. with some detail off in VGA but youve got to keep the tunnel in tho' !! SVGA is TOOO slow doncha think ?