CART PR

I have seen a lot of posts slagging CART PR and I have to wonder if these people are playing the same demo that I am. One post said that the graphics were horrible in comparison to IC2 and N2. While I have never seen the 3D versions of these two sims (since Papy refused to do a 3dfx patch) but I have to say that I find the graphics in both to be very dated. While Papy has set the bar for racing sims in the past I think they are getting things wrong at the moment. I have not purchased the BGN track pack nor SODA (want to talk about pathetic graphics?) and will not lest the offending sims get a 3dfx patch. In the current market the competition is so fierce that it is safe for us the die-hard simmers to want it all. While Papy's games have been a true wrench turners dream, they have suffered because they have not been forced to up the standard at every turn. The setups and the car models kept me up many a late night but graphically I was shaking my head after N2. Now if CART PR's physics model and engineering system prove to be what they are lauded as then Papy is going to have to scramble to keep from losing sales. I have only put in a couple days on CART and only on the Laguna track so I am not ready to spout off about the physics but they seem correct so far. Graphically speaking I have yet to see a sim as realistic as this. My only gripe is that they couldnt milk a few more FPS out of it by doing a Glide port. As it stands on my lowly 166 and Monster 3D I get 15-18 FPS with Smoothing on medium detail and all option but mirrors (which are cars only. That is not bad but 30 would sure be nice. I know that I will buy this sim the day it comes out. Unfortuneatly I will probably be upgrading my computer soon after.

VISIBLY LOCKING WHEELS?????? Where did you come up with that?

To all of you who've posted comments on CART Precision Racing: 1) Thank you! * Thanks to those of you who love the game, it's GREAT to hear you are enjoying it. We've worked very, very hard & it's an incredible pleasure to know you are enjoying it. I am very proud of what we've accomplished with our entry into the racing sim category. * Thanks to those of you who've slammed us as well. We genuinely appreciate you taking the time to try our game and to type and post the feedback. We are listening and we will carefully consider your feedback as we decide what to do now. Please keep it coming!! 2) We are committed to being a long term player in realistic racing simulation category. Your feedback (both the good stuff and especially the bad stuff) will be used as we plot our course from here. Please keep it coming. Thanks again, Eric (Producer on CART PR).

Ditto! (or Xerox) Hawker

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > I have seen a lot of posts slagging CART PR and I have to wonder if > > these people are playing the same demo that I am. One post said that > > the graphics were horrible in comparison to IC2 and N2. > The cars don't look as "sharp" as in ICR2 but the track and environment > sure is nicer. I think the graphics are first rate, quality wise, but > the framerate MUST be improved. > > Now if CART PR's physics model and engineering system prove to be what > > they are lauded as then Papy is going to have to scramble to keep from > > losing sales. I have only put in a couple days on CART and only on the > > Laguna track so I am not ready to spout off about the physics but they > > seem correct so far. Graphically speaking I have yet to see a sim as > > realistic as this. My only gripe is that they couldnt milk a few more > > FPS out of it by doing a Glide port. As it stands on my lowly 166 and > > Monster 3D I get 15-18 FPS with Smoothing on medium detail and all > > option but mirrors (which are cars only. That is not bad but 30 would > > sure be nice. > On my 3Dfx-equipped P133/64Mb I see 14-20 FPS which according the game > docs will default to a field of 8-12 cars, I question if they've got > things right. I don't think they're pounding a *lot* more through my > video than Moto Racer does, but Moto Racer flies with 24 bikes on the > track. > After several hours of tracktime I like the physics model, so I really > think Terminal Reality should work on the framerate before they work on > "improving" car physics. > -- > Neil Yeatman > Ajax, Ontario, CANADA

Hi Neal, I have the CART demo also and I dont have any problem with FR at all, it runs silky smooth and very fast on my system with full detail. I have a 209mhz (oc'ed 166MMX) and a Diamond Monster and I have no stutter, jerks or anything else, it simply flies so I wonder if some of the problems could be machine related somehow? Trev

% I have the CART demo also and I dont have any problem with FR at all, it % runs silky smooth and very fast on my system with full detail. I have a % 209mhz (oc'ed 166MMX) and a Diamond Monster and I have no stutter, jerks % or anything else, it simply flies so I wonder if some of the problems % could be machine related somehow? (Trev don't get me wrong, this is not directed at you). What the frig standard is "silky smooth"? For years I have seen reference to this frame rate standard and have yet to see it fully explained. For many people "silky smooth" has meant 12-14 fps without any slowdowns or speedups. I, for one, am in the racing sim thing to race, not to attend a fashion show about the latest silky smooth designer gown. For me, the bare mimimum standard is 25 fps without any "slowdowns" or "speedups". For years, I ran below these numbers, but now that I can run 27-30 fps, I sure as hell don't want to "race" with a frame rate below 25. Anyway, can't we come up with a more subject rating system for frame rates than "silky smooth"? [soapbox suddenly yanked out beneath his feet....] -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >I have the CART demo also and I dont have any problem with FR at all, it > >runs silky smooth and very fast on my system with full detail. I have a > >209mhz (oc'ed 166MMX) and a Diamond Monster and I have no stutter, jerks > >or anything else, it simply flies so I wonder if some of the problems > >could be machine related somehow? > Since this is contrary to what almost every 3dfx user is reporting, > how about some actual frame-rate numbers rather than a guess? > Joe

R: I would also like to state I played it on 2 P166's with voodoo's and I had very good frame rates with the game on both systems. How do I get actual frame rate numbers? Guessing I would say close to 30. The game is tough though, it's all about braking, it's like a paradox of racing. Racing the fastest guy from A to B. But it all comes down to braking which is a slowing motion. But this slowing motion is your fastest way from A to B. Go figure. Menu system is Monsert Truck Maonayse(sp) all over again, which reminded me... Where da farg is MTM 2 that was promised to be shipped with DX5.0? Lord knows that game needs a serious frame rate boost. Q.B.M.

Just wait, somebody will ask you any moment to install the newest drivers 8^) l8er ronny -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

>First of all, what do you consider the "minimum" requirements for fps?? For a 3dfx game, 25-30 fps, though occasional dips as low as 20fps aren't TOO intolerable. Not mandatory, just available in the competition. Joe

I tried the ubiSoft demo but I came away less impressed than CART. One thing about the F1 demo was it either didnt work well or at all with my steering wheel (it has been a while). Also the graphics struck me as cartoonish. I like the color pallete in CART. This is a big deal to me as far as suspension of belief. I dont like driving around in a carnival world. This is one issue I had with MotoRacer. The CART game looks like a real world color pallete and the only other game I can say that about is Janes Longbow (what more would you expect from Andy Hollis?). I hope with the increased color depths available with 3D acceleration more game producers will take the time to create reallistic palletes. As for the chocolate surface, I cant comment as it apppears normal to me. I run very dark and high contrast settings though.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I agree with much of what you say in particular about Papyrus. >However, I was not at all impressed with the CART demo, not even >the graphics are up to what they should be with D3D >(What's a chocolate coloured road surface doing in there !) >Graphics aside, it looks like an awful game so far. >I would advise you to take a look at the Ubisoft F1 racing sim demo ! >It is 3DFX glide. The graphics are beautiful and the game is everything >a real sim should be.

Quoted text (26 lines)

> % I have the CART demo also and I dont have any problem with FR at all, it > % runs silky smooth and very fast on my system with full detail. I have a > % 209mhz (oc'ed 166MMX) and a Diamond Monster and I have no stutter, jerks > % or anything else, it simply flies so I wonder if some of the problems > % could be machine related somehow? > (Trev don't get me wrong, this is not directed at you). > What the frig standard is "silky smooth"? For years I have seen > reference to this frame rate standard and have yet to see it fully > explained. For many people "silky smooth" has meant 12-14 fps without > any slowdowns or speedups. I, for one, am in the racing sim thing to > race, not to attend a fashion show about the latest silky smooth > designer gown. For me, the bare mimimum standard is 25 fps without any > "slowdowns" or "speedups". For years, I ran below these numbers, but > now that I can run 27-30 fps, I sure as hell don't want to "race" with a > frame rate below 25. Anyway, can't we come up with a more subject > rating system for frame rates than "silky smooth"? > [soapbox suddenly yanked out beneath his feet....] > -- > **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Mike, I agree with you, one persons opinion of "silky smooth" could be quite different than anothers :) what I look for is a good flow with no visible "slide show" effect, things being drawn as I approach them and I suppose just a feeling of smoothness as though I was really driving as in real life going down the highway. Beings as this is purely subjective, I have no idea if your opinion of what I see on my machine would agree with mine :)! Later :) Trev

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Are you getting the info this newsgroup?? I beg to differ on the 3dfx > newsgroups, the majority say it's fine.. > It all depends how you have your pc setup and hardware config.. > take care > Jd

Julian, I think a lot of guys just dont have the hp to run the demo, I see a lot of messages about stutter and stuff like that but I have never seen any of it :) about the only thing I see that can slow my machine down is to change the draw distance so that everything is drawn all time and then that isnt really serious slowdown, I have eveything else full bore. Trev

% Mike, I agree with you, one persons opinion of "silky smooth" could be % quite different than anothers :) what I look for is a good flow with no % visible "slide show" effect, things being drawn as I approach them and I % suppose just a feeling of smoothness as though I was really driving as % in real life going down the highway. These are very important aspects needed for suspension of disbelief when sitting behind the virtual wheel. The other things that I personally (subjectively) feel are important is a fairly consistant and constant frame rate. One that can maintain the same frame rate in conditions with lots of graphics (or traffic) and in conditions without lots of graphics (or traffic). I also need a mimimum frame rate of 20-22 for control of the car. This is a BARE mimimum, anything below this and I can't suspend my disbelief while I struggle to control the car. However, my happy medium is at least 25 fps. Then again I am only truly happy when I have at least 30 fps and all Eye/ear candy turned on. So far the only time I've been able to achieve the latter (with my current equipment), is when I run older games. Even the Rendition version of ICR2 with all detail and all cars drawn/heard can't maintain a constant 30 fps. Maybe we can "coin" a subjective term for this latter reference standard (30 fps constant, all detail, all sound). % Beings as this is purely subjective, I have no idea if your opinion of % what I see on my machine would agree with mine :)! -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (13 lines)

>On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 21:03:03 -0500, Neil Yeatman >>The cars don't look as "sharp" as in ICR2 but the track and environment >>sure is nicer. >Make sure you compare like with like - if you are looking at D3D >version of MS-CART then you should compare with Rendition version of >ICR2. I tried both last night, and there is _no_comparison_ between >the graphics. Sitting at the top of the S/F straight at Laguna ICR2 >looks soooooo much better. Effect of distance, mild fogging/heat-haze >in the distance, sharpness, textures, anti-aliasing, the full monty - >and in the mirrors as well.

Another thing that I've noticed, comparing ICR2-3D with the CPR demo, is the differing perspective of the***pit views. In CPR the road in the distance comes closer to a true "vanishing point", while its much wider (in the distance) in ICR2. If you look at the sides of the road as they converge in the distance, in CPR the convergence is *much* sharper. I think this perspective may be contributing to the control problems I'm having and enhancing the speed effect for all. Also, comparing Laguna's, which is more accurate: ICR2's dips on the backstraight (between T6 & T7) where the cars disappear from view or CPR's view where you can see directly from T6 to T7? Put it into turbo mode and then you'll see FPS! People think CPR is giving them a sensation of speed... When you've seen that, the CPR demo starts looking like a rather lame graphics engine. Before you send me UCE, I know what you're thinking... Did he complain to five or six postmasters last month? Now, you must ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?

IMO there is no comparison between the graphics in CART PR and those in the Rendition version of ICR2. The latter, to me, is of far better quality and realism. CART PR, with smoothing "on", gives the impression that the only thing to be smoothed is the track/dirt surface. Anything with an edge to it remains as jagged as before. The graphics in the Microsoft product are just too "heavy"......there is far more subtlety in ICR2 that provides a better ambience. When we are in the***pit the most imprtant thing is the track and any middle-ground and back-ground artwork should be less intensive. Graphics beyond the track and its immediate verges should be softer...we need to know something is there to give a sense of reality but that is all. ICR2 does this very well....probably the best of any racing simulation. Try it yourself the next time you are driving and when you are concentrating on your driving. Your peripheral vision will "see" the middle-ground and back-ground but not nearly at the same "strength" as the road and verges immediately in front of you. -- Bruce. (At home)

Just noting my framerates (with the DEMO version) System: Intel 233MMX 512K PB Cache 64MB SDRAM Monster 3D (3dfx) (Latest Drivers) Frame Rate (varies with location on track): No other cars on track. All graphics options on (Cockpit, pitboard, full detail). I got between 15 and 21 fps at Laguna Seca. Turning the Picture-in-picture on brought it to between 13 and 17 fps Full viewing (clipping) distance (P in P off) gave 13 - 17 fps Shortest clipping distance (P in P off) gave 19 - 23 fps Not bad, but with cars on the track, it might be worse. BUT!!! I will turn off all the graphics options I need to get it to run well. To me the physics and the AI is FAR FAR more important to me than graphics. At speed and in traffic, you hardly notice the eye candy. I loved ICR1 when I had a 386/25 and I had to turn off almost all of the detail -- because it was a good racing sim. Jeff