NASCAR 2 Questions

I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions. 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound driver in both games. 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect the speed of the cars?

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so > I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions. > 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really > loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not > clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound > driver in both games. > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I > have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect > the speed of the cars?

Do you have auto-brake on? -- PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882 I think you can figure out the SPAM filter. Visit my pages: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so > > I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions. > > 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really > > loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not > > clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound > > driver in both games. > > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but > > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I > > have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I > > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by > > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect > > the speed of the cars? > Do you have auto-brake on? > -- > PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882 > I think you can figure out the SPAM filter. > Visit my pages: > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html > "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo

No. I guess you're really not sure if the CPU makes a difference with car speed.

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > > I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so > > > I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions. > > > 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really > > > loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not > > > clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound > > > driver in both games. > > > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but > > > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I > > > have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I > > > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by > > > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect > > > the speed of the cars? > > Do you have auto-brake on? > > -- > > PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882 > > I think you can figure out the SPAM filter. > > Visit my pages: > > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html > > "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo > No. I guess you're really not sure if the CPU makes a difference with > car speed.

I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on page 29, incase anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting over 50% on the Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it back to 50% and can roar just like before.

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > > I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so > > > I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions. > > > 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really > > > loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not > > > clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound > > > driver in both games. > > > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but > > > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I > > > have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I > > > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by > > > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect > > > the speed of the cars? > > Do you have auto-brake on? > > -- > > PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882 > > I think you can figure out the SPAM filter. > > Visit my pages: > > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html > > "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo > No. I guess you're really not sure if the CPU makes a difference with > car speed.

Theoretically the processor speed shouldn't make a difference in car speed. However, the speed of the CPU directly effects your (i.e. the human) driving environment in terms of frame rate and or graphic detail levels you find acceptable. The more info your brain can take in, the better your responses. Imagine trying to drive a curvey (sp?) road at night while your headlights are acting like strobe lights. Techically your car can still drive at the same speed, but the reduction of visual information caused you to drive less than optimal. The real unanswered question (from Papy) is the Joystick sample rate and Physics computation rate. Is this effected by CPU speed or is it run at a fixed rate regardless of "frame rate". Odds are the sample/computation rate is fixed for any level of CPU. mykey

>2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but >the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I >have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I >have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by >putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect >the speed of the cars? The faster the CPU, the smoother the frame rate, (as well as with more memory, faster video card, etc.). The smoother the frame rate, the faster laps you're gonna turn. But I doubt going from a P75 to a P133 will automatically add 20 mph per lap. Maybe 3 or 4 tenths of a second... I went from a P120 to a P200 MMX, and the most notable improvement for me was at Sears Point! I could drive with all the details on, making the changes in the track more evident, and the frame rate was much smoother - corners I used to have major problems with, disappeared! As a result, my laptimes went from so-so to pretty darned good!

[Good explanation of why Jane can drive faster laps on her PPro-200 than on Joe's 486-66 snipped.] I hadn't ever seen that specific question asked, but I thought I had commented on it before... In any event: The joystick sample rate and physics computation rate are constant for all machines, and do NOT vary with different CPUs or motherboards. (even Packard Bells :-) ) ---Jim

Quoted text (19 lines)

> [Good explanation of why Jane can drive faster laps on her PPro-200 than > on Joe's 486-66 snipped.] > > The real unanswered question (from Papy) is the Joystick sample rate and > > Physics computation rate. > > Is this effected by CPU speed or is it run at a fixed rate regardless of > > "frame rate". > > Odds are the sample/computation rate is fixed for any level of CPU. > I hadn't ever seen that specific question asked, but I thought I had > commented on it before... > In any event: The joystick sample rate and physics computation rate are > constant for all machines, and do NOT vary with different CPUs or > motherboards. (even Packard Bells :-) ) > ---Jim

Thanks for the info.. That helps on the top end of the scale. Does this still hold true for the 486-66 with every graphic option turned "ON" (not Auto) and achieves a wooping 5 fps. Could this overhead possibly cause the sample/calculation rate to slow down? It's not THAT important, just a theoritcal question. Also, if you have any idea, can you give us a ball park figure on what the rate is? 15, 30, 60, etc times per second? mykey

>Also, if you have any idea, can you give us a ball park figure on what >the rate is? >15, 30, 60, etc times per second? Another question, How is the joystick analog to digital conversion result used? i.e. if the scale of calibration is 1-200, does that mean I get a granularity of 1/200 within my steering lock? Or does the game support some finite number of steering values that the 0-200 range are mapped to? This info would be useful for Thrustmaster ACM users that have full control of the calibration range by turning the ACM's external calibration control. Besides following thrustmaster's suggestion and calibrating the ACM with the needle in the middle of their scale, is there any other logic to use to get the most responsive input? Of course, trial and error is always available.... :-) I suspect you do not want a range big enough such that your control ever twitches or goes backwards on the calibration screen. Any such lack of complete control would yield less than optimal control of the simulation. -- Best Wishes!!! Robert Huggins Raleigh, NC

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > In any event: The joystick sample rate and physics computation rate are > > constant for all machines, and do NOT vary with different CPUs or > > motherboards. (even Packard Bells :-) ) > > ---Jim > Thanks for the info.. That helps on the top end of the scale. > Does this still hold true for the 486-66 with every graphic option > turned "ON" (not Auto) and achieves a wooping 5 fps.

Yes, you will get multiple joystick reads and physics calculations per displayed frame... No, the joystick read is interrupt driven. If the machine is so slow that it can't service the interrupt in a timely fashion, I believe Papy sims error out. (Your machine would have to be DAMNED slow for this to happen...) The physics calculation rate (and therefore the maximum useful frame rate) is 30 Hz. The joystick read rate is 15 Hz I think. ---Jim

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Also, if you have any idea, can you give us a ball park figure on what > >the rate is? > >15, 30, 60, etc times per second? > Another question, How is the joystick analog to digital conversion > result used? i.e. if the scale of calibration is 1-200, does that > mean I get a granularity of 1/200 within my steering lock? Or does > the game support some finite number of steering values that the 0-200 > range are mapped to?

I haven't looked at the code in many months (obviously), but in a nutshell, it's the former. (The number of discrete steering (and throttle/brake) values is limited by the calibration range. I don't know, as I've never tried the ACM card. I would imagine that for current Papy sims, ranges of 200-500 would be sufficient, but your mileage may vary. In any event, it's much more important to get a good "center" and good repeatable readings than worrying about what the step size is. This is correct, and probably the most important guide to use in control calibration. In theory, the smaller the highest number acheivable in the calibration screen, the faster the joystick read will be, leaving more time to do the physics and draw the frame. In practice, the time difference is so small for infrequent joystick reads that it probably doesn't matter. GPL will probably read the joystick a lot more frequently, so it may be slightly more important there. ---Jim

> I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on page 29, incase > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting over 50% on the > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it back to 50% and > can roar just like before. I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing cars in N1 and find that lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the spotter at 50% and turn up everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter gets lost in the background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because I want all the other sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to have center stage. This gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me the other levels I want. I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's still not nearly as loud as N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have N2 set at, it'd be deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2 as it seemed a little choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic detail. Has anyone come up with the optimum sound settings for N2?

>Has anyone come up > with the optimum sound settings for N2? Try kicking the spotter down to 70 or 80% and turning up the speaker volume (or get louder/amplified speakers) ---Jim

: > I suspect you do not want a range big enough such that your control : > ever twitches or goes backwards on the calibration screen. Any such : > lack of complete control would yield less than optimal control of the : > simulation. : This is correct, and probably the most important guide to use in control : calibration. : In theory, the smaller the highest number acheivable in the calibration : screen, the faster the joystick read will be, leaving more time to do : the physics and draw the frame. In practice, the time difference is so : small for infrequent joystick reads that it probably doesn't matter. GPL : will probably read the joystick a lot more frequently, so it may be : slightly more important there. Jim, Two questions about the above: 1) Does the joystick code perform any smoothing or filtering of the input samples or are the samples used as-is? 2) The last paragraph above implies (to me) that the CPU just sits around doing nothing while the joystick "times out", thus wasting potential computation time. Previous posts have lead me to believe that the joystick code operated on interrupts, using some Pentium instruction counter for accurate timing. I feel that I am misunderstanding something here. Is the CPU actually idling while the joystick is being read? Thanks Jim for your great informative posts. I save them all. --Scott -- Scott Willingham / Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

> 1) Does the joystick code perform any smoothing or filtering of the input > samples or are the samples used as-is? Samples are used as is. Yes, the CPU is busy-looping (technical not the same as being idle) while the joystick is being read. The Pentium RDTSC issue was an artifact of DMA transfers stealing bus cycles, causing a programmatic busy-loop's count to be off by a variable amount, introducing noise into the joystick read. RDTSC reads a version of "wall clock" time, instead of "CPU time" and is thus almost perfectly immune to DMA bus-cycle noise. (If the DMA burst happens during the joystick trigger, there will be a small amount of noise recorded.) ---Jim

<HTML> &nbsp; <BR>>Has anyone come up <BR>> with the optimum sound settings for N2? <P>Try kicking the spotter down to 70 or 80% and turning up the speaker <BR>volume (or get louder/amplified speakers) <P>---Jim</BLOCKQUOTE> &nbsp; <BR>I'll try that, but I do have very loud/amplified speakers, and if I put the spotter at any less than 100% he gets lost in the engine(s) and squeal sounds. It seems difficult to get a good mix like you could get in N1. <P>JMG</HTML>

> I'll try that, but I do have very loud/amplified speakers, and if I > put the spotter at any less than 100% he gets lost in the engine(s) > and squeal sounds. It seems difficult to get a good mix like you could > get in N1. Of course, N1 had no during-the-game voice, so it wasn't really such an issue... :-) ---Jim

Have you tried the N2 Sound patch? It takes the much-better tire squeal from N1 and incorporates it into N2. This way, you don't have that constant annoying screech of tires. Give it a shot. It's available at http://www.theuspits.com -/- BW

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on page 29, incase > > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting over 50% on the > > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it back to 50% and > > can roar just like before. > I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing cars in N1 and find that > lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the spotter at 50% and turn up > everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter gets lost in the > background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because I want all the other > sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to have center stage. This > gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me the other levels I want. > I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's still not nearly as loud as > N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have N2 set at, it'd be > deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2 as it seemed a little > choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic detail. Has anyone come up > with the optimum sound settings for N2?

I did download some awesome engine sound files from The Yellow Flag website. These things roar better than NASCAR1.

I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't think that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely moving pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my stall and hit the gas I noticed the extra power.

Quoted text (53 lines)

> > > > I have been playing NASCAR 1 for quite some time and really enjoy it, so > > > > I just bought NASCAR 2. I have a couple questions. > > > > 1. Is the sound in 2 different from 1? In 1, the engines are really > > > > loud, full of base and very clear. In 2, they are much quieter, not > > > > clear at all, and lack any base whatsoever. I'm using the same sound > > > > driver in both games. > > > > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but > > > > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. I > > > > have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I > > > > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by > > > > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually affect > > > > the speed of the cars? > > > Do you have auto-brake on? > > > -- > > > PolePosition#3- IVGA #4882 > > > I think you can figure out the SPAM filter. > > > Visit my pages: > > > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/4578/index.html > > > "If you don't believe, you don't belong." -- Alan Kulwicki's Credo > > No. I guess you're really not sure if the CPU makes a difference with > > car speed. > Theoretically the processor speed shouldn't make a difference in car > speed. > However, the speed of the CPU directly effects your (i.e. the human) > driving environment in terms of frame rate and or graphic detail levels > you find acceptable. > The more info your brain can take in, the better your responses. > Imagine trying to drive a curvey (sp?) road at night while your > headlights are acting like strobe lights. Techically your car can still > drive at the same speed, but the reduction of visual information caused > you to drive less than optimal. > The real unanswered question (from Papy) is the Joystick sample rate and > Physics computation rate. > Is this effected by CPU speed or is it run at a fixed rate regardless of > "frame rate". > Odds are the sample/computation rate is fixed for any level of CPU. > mykey

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without > changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am > also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only > hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit > stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't think > that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely moving > pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my stall > and hit the gas I noticed the extra power.

Sounds like the new processor forced you to re-calibrate your joystick, which was likely the problem all along. ---Jim

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without > changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am > also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only > hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit > stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't > > think that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely > > moving pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my > stall and hit the gas I noticed the extra power. > 2. I have downloaded setups that people say can turn 194 MPH laps, but > the best I can do is 174 MPH. My car runs alot faster in NASCAR 1. > I have a Pentium 75 with 40 megs of ram and a 4 meg PCI video card. I > have an Intel 133 on order. Will I turn faster laps within the game by > putting in a faster CPU, or doesn't the speed of the CPU actually > effect the speed of the cars?

Hmm... Just goes to show how these computers are weird. I have a P75, 16Meg Ram, and only 1 Meg video ram... yet the 204 at the end of Tally's backstretch is within my reach without aid of draft, and I'm not that great of a driver. Also, I have to be careful to not "loop it" coming out my pit stall. Weird. I suspect that the slow performance on the "old" system could be from that huge 40Meg ram? My understanding is, that if N2 reads you have the memory for it, it loads the "8-bit" graphics, insted of the "4-bit". Could it be that would cause a P75 to really struggle? Hence "drivability"? As for a faster CPU making the car "faster" by virtue of improved CPU performance alone (not to be confused with the "frame rate" issue, which is separate), hasn't Jim Solokof (sp?) told us over and over again on the r.a.s. that Papy restricted N2 to one common denomonator, speed-of-car-wise... regardless of CPU? Just a thought... God Bless, Andre

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > I just received my Intel 133 chip to replace my Intel 75, and without > > changing anything else I have picked up 20mph on my lap speeds. I am > > also hitting 204mph at the end of both straights, and before was only > > hitting 180 if lucky. I always had to back up to get out of the pit > > stalls, but now I can even sit and do donuts on pit road. I don't think > > that has anything to do with frame rates because you are barely moving > > pulling out of your stall. Actually, as soon as I got out of my stall > > and hit the gas I noticed the extra power. > Sounds like the new processor forced you to re-calibrate your joystick, > which was likely the problem all along. > ---Jim

Actually, it did.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> As for a faster CPU making the car "faster" by virtue of improved CPU > performance alone (not to be confused with the "frame rate" issue, which > is separate), hasn't Jim Solokof (sp?) told us over and over again on > the r.a.s. that Papy restricted N2 to one common denomonator, > speed-of-car-wise... regardless of CPU? Just a thought... > God Bless, > Andre

While the "ability" of the car may have been the same for P75 as with a P133 the measured speed is from the Car+Driver combo. How you react to 15 fps is probably different than how someone else does. I personally would turn off the eye candy to the point I'm driving in the desert. But I'm not everybody. When I had a 486-100 I had to handicap the guy I raced with. We started from the back, and didn't allow any passing on the first lap. My computer went into "slide show mode" if I tried to pass a pack of cars. Running alone, I could achieve the same type of speeds as now (maybe a little less) but traffic was a killer. My current system p166 with rendition means I now have to get handicapped. The difference may be more resolution from the controller. <Hypothetical numbers> 486 calibration 500-1000 pent calibration 800-1600 On the pentium I have 800 descrete positions of the wheel as opposed to only 500 with the 486. With this info, I wonder how an ACM helps if your range is reduced. Hopefully it becomes much more consistant due to military specs on the chips. mykey

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The difference may be more resolution from the controller. ><Hypothetical numbers> >486 calibration 500-1000 >pent calibration 800-1600 >On the pentium I have 800 descrete positions of the wheel as opposed to >only 500 with the 486. >With this info, I wonder how an ACM helps if your range is reduced.

I have been wondering the same thing. Here is my theory on how an ACM and a TSW can improve the situation: Can the human body handle 800 discrete positions within 270 degrees of steering lock? I don't think so? Can most potentiometers handle 800 discrete positions within 270 degrees of steering lock? I don't think so? You can prove or disprove this to yourself in the N2 calibration screen. Steer maximum left turn (full lock), then slowly steer to the right and watch the calibration number and/or needle. If you ever skip a number or if the count ever goes back down, then either the human body, the potentiometer, the gamecard A/D, or the calibration software just let you down. You also want to minimize the number of points where you get A/D flutter. (i.e. you hold the wheel steady and the calibtation number and/or needle move between two or more numbers). You know sawing the wheel scrubs off speed. With too big a range, this sawing effect could be happening on a very small scale without you even knowing it. I don't think this helps lap times. :-) It can't be helping the weight transfers either. It can't be helping the precise entry of a corner. Substitute your own numbers above in place of the 800. With creative labs brand sound blaster cards, I have seen ranges up to 1600. With factory fresh potentiometers, the negative effects of a large calibration range will be minimized. Perhaps the learning curve causes steady improvement despite the degradation of the calibration smoothness due to the potentiometer wearing. I have experienced a jump in performance after replacing a worn potentiometer with a new one. Now, how can the thrustmaster ACM and a TSW improve the situation: With the ACM, you have full control over the calibration range. If your potentiometer is wearing, you can reduce the calibration range to the point where you do not have glitches on the calibration screen. With the TSW which uses linear 100K potentiometers as compared to the Thrustmaster's linear 200K potentiometers, the range is automatically cut in half. Both these reasons support the arguement that a smaller calibration number takes less time for the software to read it and slightly improves overall performance. -- Best Wishes!!! Robert Huggins Raleigh, NC

<HTML> &nbsp; <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on page 29, incase <BR>> > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting over 50% on the <BR>> > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds.&nbsp; I set it back to 50% and <BR>> > can roar just like before. <BR>> <BR>> I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing cars in N1 and find that <BR>> lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the spotter at 50% and turn up <BR>> everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter gets lost in the <BR>> background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because I want all the other <BR>> sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to have center stage. This <BR>> gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me the other levels I want. <BR>> I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's still not nearly as loud as <BR>> N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have N2 set at, it'd be <BR>> deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2 as it seemed a little <BR>> choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic detail. Has anyone come up <BR>> with the optimum sound settings for N2? <P>I did download some awesome engine sound files from The Yellow Flag <BR>website.&nbsp; These things roar better than NASCAR1.</BLOCKQUOTE> &nbsp;I downloaded the Rusty Wallace***pit with enhanced engine sounds but didn't install it as a couple of people here said that the engine didn't change sound as you the RPMs changed. I like the way the current engine sound works in this regard and if the new would do that, I'd install it in a heartbeat. <P>JMG</HTML>

Quoted text (64 lines)

> >The difference may be more resolution from the controller. > ><Hypothetical numbers> > >486 calibration 500-1000 > >pent calibration 800-1600 > >On the pentium I have 800 descrete positions of the wheel as opposed to > >only 500 with the 486. > >With this info, I wonder how an ACM helps if your range is reduced. > I have been wondering the same thing. Here is my theory on how an ACM > and a TSW can improve the situation: > Can the human body handle 800 discrete positions within 270 degrees of > steering lock? I don't think so? > Can most potentiometers handle 800 discrete positions within 270 > degrees of steering lock? I don't think so? > You can prove or disprove this to yourself in the N2 calibration > screen. Steer maximum left turn (full lock), then slowly steer to the > right and watch the calibration number and/or needle. If you ever > skip a number or if the count ever goes back down, then either the > human body, the potentiometer, the gamecard A/D, or the calibration > software just let you down. You also want to minimize the number of > points where you get A/D flutter. (i.e. you hold the wheel steady and > the calibtation number and/or needle move between two or more > numbers). > You know sawing the wheel scrubs off speed. With too big a range, > this sawing effect could be happening on a very small scale without > you even knowing it. > I don't think this helps lap times. :-) > It can't be helping the weight transfers either. > It can't be helping the precise entry of a corner. > Substitute your own numbers above in place of the 800. With creative > labs brand sound blaster cards, I have seen ranges up to 1600. > With factory fresh potentiometers, the negative effects of a large > calibration range will be minimized. Perhaps the learning curve > causes steady improvement despite the degradation of the calibration > smoothness due to the potentiometer wearing. > I have experienced a jump in performance after replacing a worn > potentiometer with a new one. > Now, how can the thrustmaster ACM and a TSW improve the situation: > With the ACM, you have full control over the calibration range. If > your potentiometer is wearing, you can reduce the calibration range to > the point where you do not have glitches on the calibration screen. > With the TSW which uses linear 100K potentiometers as compared to the > Thrustmaster's linear 200K potentiometers, the range is automatically > cut in half. > Both these reasons support the arguement that a smaller calibration > number takes less time for the software to read it and slightly > improves overall performance. > -- > Best Wishes!!! > Robert Huggins > Raleigh, NC

well, all that you say makes good sense on paper.... but... in my experience, on a slower machine than yours, of course... I find that with a smaller range, I will invariably find a point in a turn, where my current joystick position (yes, I said joystick... LOL ) will will put me down below the apron, yet if I just breathe the other way, it heads toward the wall. almost as if i can "feel" that minute change between one cal unit and the next. It seems to me that if I can cut that one unit into two or more , by having a larger calibration range, then I can find one of those "in between spots", and a line that I can hold . but then again... Maybe it's just me. LOL My best analogy of this is when painting with individual pixels, as opposed to with a four or more pixel-block. when you break that block down, you get a higher resolution, and a cleaner line :) -- Sit down,,Strap in,,Shut up,,Hang on,,Go fast,,Turn left,,Kiss Trophy Girl GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,, Handy^man

Quoted text (41 lines)

> > > I found the answer to my sound question in the manual on > page 29, incase > > > anyone else is having this problem. Any volume setting > over 50% on the > > > Speech slider bar decreases all other sounds. I set it > back to 50% and > > > can roar just like before. > > I, too, like the engine roar of my car and the opposing > cars in N1 and find that > > lacking in N2. I find, however, that if I leave the > spotter at 50% and turn up > > everything else to get the sound level I want, the spotter > gets lost in the > > background. Right now, I've got everything at 100% because > I want all the other > > sounds as loud as possible, but also want the spotter to > have center stage. This > > gives me the spotter level I require, but doesn't give me > the other levels I want. > > I even have my speakers turned all the way up and it's > still not nearly as loud as > > N1. If I switched over to N1 with the speaker level I have > N2 set at, it'd be > > deafening. And I even switch out to a DOS prompt to run N2 > as it seemed a little > > choppy under Win95 and I don't want to lose any graphic > detail. Has anyone come up > > with the optimum sound settings for N2? > I did download some awesome engine sound files from The > Yellow Flag > website. These things roar better than NASCAR1. > I downloaded the Rusty Wallace***pit with enhanced engine sounds > but didn't install it as a couple of people here said that the engine > didn't change sound as you the RPMs changed. I like the way the > current engine sound works in this regard and if the new would do > that, I'd install it in a heartbeat. > JMG

The file I downloaded wasn't related to any racer's***pit. It was sound files only. Go to: [link lost in import] and download "New Engine Sound" engine.zip file. I also downloaded and installed some other files from that page including a window net and dirty windshield. They are great!

Quoted text (19 lines)

> well, all that you say makes good sense on paper.... but... in my > experience, on a slower machine than yours, of course... I find that > with a smaller range, I will invariably find a point in a turn, where my > current joystick position (yes, I said joystick... LOL ) will will put > me down below the apron, yet if I just breathe the other way, it heads > toward the wall. almost as if i can "feel" that minute change between > one cal unit and the next. It seems to me that if I can cut that one > unit into two or more , by having a larger calibration range, then I can > find one of those "in between spots", and a line that I can hold . > but then again... Maybe it's just me. LOL > My best analogy of this is when painting with individual pixels, as > opposed to with a four or more pixel-block. when you break that block > down, you get a higher resolution, and a cleaner line :) > -- > Sit down,,Strap in,,Shut up,,Hang on,,Go fast,,Turn left,,Kiss Trophy > Girl > GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,, > Handy^man

I agree with the idea of more resolution is better but I think your example isn't due to the controller. Because I've been there.. I've felt that. I think it has more to do with the chassis setup. If your setup is a little loose the car wants to turn left. (Assuming its a left hand turn). It is when your front wheels are heading straight yet the car is turning left because the rear wheels are sliding. By turning slightly to the right you equalize the yaw and the rear wheels stop sliding. At that moment the car goes in the "normal" direction based on the front wheels. i.e. to the right. It's like a razor's edge. Turning left below the line, or heading to the wall. Adjust that setup so you have a neutral zone in there. Or get VERY good at driving that setup. mykey

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I agree with the idea of more resolution is better but I think your > example isn't due to the controller. > Because I've been there.. I've felt that. > I think it has more to do with the chassis setup. > If your setup is a little loose the car wants to turn left. (Assuming > its a left hand turn). > It is when your front wheels are heading straight yet the car is turning > left because the rear wheels are sliding. By turning slightly to the > right you equalize the yaw and the rear wheels stop sliding. At that > moment the car goes in the "normal" direction based on the front > wheels. i.e. to the right. > It's like a razor's edge. Turning left below the line, or heading to > the wall. > Adjust that setup so you have a neutral zone in there. Or get VERY good > at driving that setup. > mykey

-- A very valid possibility, and as a matter of fact, I do usually have a somewhat loose setup. I can't stand a tight car . I go a *little* faster in a loose one . anyway, getting a T2 sometime this weekend, so maybe I can start all over with a fresh set of troubles :) LOL Sit down,Strap in,Shut up,Hang on,Go fast,Turn left, Do the Trophy Girl GGGGGGgoooo #3,,,31,,,28,,,94,,,6,,,5,,,18,,,8,,, Handy^man