cart PR what am I doing wrong?

OK here is my system: P100 32 meg ram intergraph rendition version next the question I have read the manual for the demo tried everything they have said to try but my frame rate is still With or with out hardware acceleration about 5-6 fps in 640x480 and only 9 or ten in non accelerated low end p60 mode. IS their something wrong or is this game THAT bad graphically speaking? and yes I am running in full screen mode. ps. please e-mail me with an answer as this news server dose not receive very many messages. Thank you

> First question, do you have the latest drivers?? > Second question, what details do you have enabled?? I'll answer the gentleman's question. Yes the game is that bad graphically. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >OK here is my system: > >P100 > >32 meg ram > >intergraph rendition version > >next the question > >I have read the manual for the demo tried everything they have said to > >try but my frame rate is still > >With or with out hardware acceleration about 5-6 fps in 640x480 and only > >9 or ten in non > >accelerated low end p60 mode. IS their something wrong or is this game > >THAT bad graphically speaking? > >and yes I am running in full screen mode. > >ps. please e-mail me with an answer as this news server dose not receive > >very many messages. Thank you > First question, do you have the latest drivers?? > Second question, what details do you have enabled??

You are kidding, aren't you?? Or do you really believe that new drivers would increase his 5-6 fps to, let's say, 15-20 fps! No driver update ever increased fps that much... 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!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> First question, do you have the latest drivers?? > >> Second question, what details do you have enabled?? > >I'll answer the gentleman's question. Yes the game is that bad graphically. > That has "nothing" do with the question. READ it again, Greg. You have state an > "opinion",not an answer..

DUH. Um... I was referring to the original poster's question. And the answer to his question of "is the game graphically that bad" is *YES*, CPR blows. You seem to feel the need to respond to all of my posts or something. You some type of *** stalker? -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

to his question of "is the game graphically that bad" is *YES*, CPR blows.>> This answer is incredibly unsatisfactory. I by no means have a top of the line 3D system ( a slower than average P133 with a new Stealth II Rendition board) and it still looks and plays great. The problem is that when you try to race the frame rate drops due to all the other cars on the track. Mostly I just do hotlaps and work on setups. I'd find it hard to recommend this game to someone with my hardware config, simply because of the frame rate sacrifices during a race -- but these things can (and I think WILL) be addressed going forward. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Please take a look at some of the things other people have been posting. We had a lot of machines in this config (P200, 3dfx) in our test group and experienced excellent graphics performance. sometimes reinstalling will speed up your framerate... John Browne MS CART Team >Sorry, but the CPR frame rate is sub-par even on a P200 with a 3dfx. >There's no excuse for that. Period.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Please take a look at some of the things other people have been posting. We > had a lot of machines in this config (P200, 3dfx) in our test group and > experienced excellent graphics performance. sometimes reinstalling will > speed up your framerate... > John Browne > MS CART Team > >Sorry, but the CPR frame rate is sub-par even on a P200 with a 3dfx. > >There's no excuse for that. Period.

John, I wouldnt put too much stock in comments such as these, they should be phrased "frame rate is sub par, in my opinion" for one thing one players idea of performance is sure to be different from the next. AFAIC what needs immediate attention is the abysmal AI "in my opinion" :) Trev

You have obviously never played ICR2 and then the Rendition version on the same machine to compare. My P166 plays ICR2 with all detail and 14 cars ahead on the standard version and it looks OK at 30fps. The Rendition version however allows full field ahead and AWESOME graphical touches and holds a steady 30fps and in show off mode hits 45+fps. The processor never changed. Nascar2 with Rendition -dma holds at least a 10fps advantage over the standard N2 but once again with better graphics. The reason GP2 does not gain any 3D card advantage is because it is not ported to any 3D cards! So it is Processor dependant. And if you invested in a P2-300 over a P2-266 you definately flushed some cash, since the current IO system is maxed out at the 266mhz processor level, unless of course you spent MAJOR bucks on ultra-fast periphreals, like a Seagate Cheetah harddrive etc. . Every sim is different, BUT some are processor dependant and some are definately 3D card dependant. And $100 bucks for a Verite card gets way better performance gains than $400 processor in both N2 and ICR2. -Jody-

>Please take a look at some of the things other people have been posting. We >had a lot of machines in this config (P200, 3dfx) in our test group and >experienced excellent graphics performance. sometimes reinstalling will >speed up your framerate... Please define "excellent graphics performance". I would define "excellent graphics performance" as 30+ fps with all features on, in the***pit view. 25fps is "ok", 20 fps or anything less is sub-par. Joe

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>>Now put that super-duper 3D card in a P100 or P133 machine and run GP2 >>>(or even a 3D accelerated sim). YECH! So choppy as to be unplayable. >> You obviously haven't seen ICR2-3D on a Rendition V1000 card. I >>can get frame rates into the 40's and 50's on my P133. (As an >>example, when I was comparing ICR2-3D to CPR head-to-head last night, >>I was able to get 49 fps at Laguna in ICR2 in turbo mode, I couldn't >>get over about 17 fps with CPR [with most graphics options off]). >True.. but, you are forgetting the fact it's "ported" to Rendition.

Yes, that fact is indeed true (and no I didn't forget it). Two questions, though: 1. How is that relevant to the original supposition, that a good 3D video card is wasted on a slow machine (P100 or P133)? ICR3D only proves that a *well-utilized* 3D card (even a lowly [by today's standards] 1st-generation V1000) can do wonders, even with a slow CPU. 2. How is that relevant to my gameplay? When I'm trying out CPR, should I say, "oh, its not a direct port, so I should accept inferior performance"? 17 is not 49. The fact that CPR is D3D and not a hardware-specific port may make a difference to potential buyers and to MS's programming and marketing, but the end result is lesser performance. I *really* want CPR to be good. I love ICR3D, but it is a dead end product from the standpoint of future commercial development (in spite of the valiant efforts of hackers like TSP). CPR is a very promising sim, the most promising aspect of which may be the committment of the CPR team to be in it "for the long haul". It just looks to me like it may take a few versions, or a few more versions of D3D, or time for the hardware to mature to match up with the choices made in the execution of the sim. :( That's based on the demo, maybe the final release will be substantially better. Time will tell. 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?

GP2 is a bad example to use when you are talking "super-duper 3-D cards". A 3-D card has absolutely no beneficial effect on GP2. Now....you want to talk frame rates? I installed the Trial version of CART onto 3 machines yesterday, with the following results: 1. P100, 2Mb Trident bog-standard PCI card, 32Mb machine RAM. The best 'playable' frame rate I could get, in 380x400 res., was around 9 fps. 2. P200, 4Mb Cirrus Logic PCI card, 32Mb machine RAM. Once again, running in the second-highest resolution, with graphics trimmed to suit, the best fps was around 14 fps. 3. P166, Rendition card 4Mb, 32Mb machine RAM. In 640 x 480, with hardware acceleration and smoothing, all graphics except sky and 4 cars on the track, the best playable frame rate was in the order of 19 fps. By reducing the resolution to the next highest the frame reate went up to over 22 fps. Now....compare that with a P100 running the Rendition card, 32Mb machine RAM and playing ICR2 Rendition. Never below 30fps!! Or the same machine running NASCAR 2......minimum frame rate of 27fps. Or the 166 with the Rendition card, wher the fps on ICR2 goes off the map and NASCAR2 is above 30 fps. So now consider what the majority of gripes will centre around with CART Precision Racing......it will be the same as what we saw when GP2 was released........SLOW!!! Bruce.

Ya. Right up to the point where people start posting framerate numbers (which are provided with CPR). I get an average of 27fps with my P5-166 3dfx, and draw ahead distance set to 15. While I can get around the track at an OK framerate, I am turned off at the poor 3dfx performance. Maybe the finished game will be better. I have by no means decided to never purchase the game. But so far I am very skeptical. I really do like the moving***pit. I do not think the control of the car is out of whack at all. I am really OK with all that. The framerate is what one would expect from a 2D game, but you need a 3dfx card to achieve. -- Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

> How many colors is the rendition version of ICR2? I can't remember and I > am at work right now. Is it 256 colors? I honestly can't remember. CPR > is 16 bit. > -Paul Rendition ICR2 rendered into a 16-bit frame buffer. Both 16-bit and 4-bit textures. Randy

No....I won't "take care'....I prefer to run a risk-ridden existence. You missed my point entirely. Not everyone is running high-end 2-D cards, just the same as not everyone is running 3-D cards of any description. The two systems with the Trident and Cirrus cards were current models directed towards the "family" user by non-computer specialists (department stores). This is the type of system that "Mr. Average" has slung at him with the words "Yep! It's got Windows 95 all ready to run and a swag of Microsoft products on it.....have fun!" Mr. Average is most impressed....'Microsoft', eh! I've heard of them....they make EVERYTHING to use on computers so they must be good. A week later he's back at the store having a face-to-face with the salesman because this new MICROSOFT game that he bought at a games store runs like a piece of garbage on his new computer that's full of Microsoft stuff. All the other stuff runs okay....why doesn't this game? THAT'S my point!! Mr. Average doesn't give a tupenny damn about 'specialised ports', 'Rendition' or chrome-plated grimbel-sprigs....he's just bought a Microsoft game that, to him, is crap. -- Bruce. (At home)

standards] 1st-generation V1000) can do wonders, even with a slow CPU. >> Yeah, because its 1st generation software. Remember that when Indy Car II came out, only leading edge computers could run it in SVGA mode, and there was NO 3D support. My 486/66 was inadequate to run the game in high res. I was finally able to with almost all details on in my P133. It certainly stands to reason that a 3D card on a machine for which ICR2 was already running well UNACCELERATED would go through the roof when accelerated. If you want to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have to say that with NO 3d Accleration and suggested machine: CPR on a P200MMX = ICR2 on a P133. CPR on a P133 = ICR2 on a 486/66 CPR on a P60 = ICR2 on a 386/33 or something like that. Comparing adding 3D features to ICR2 on a machine that ALREADY ran ICR2 at full speed without it is just gravy. Then, as now, the developer has pushed everyone's hardware requirements up, and as I recall there were a lot of gripes about ICR2-high res when it came out, just as there a lot of gripes about GP2 when it came out. Many people were upset that the game didn't truly shine unless you owned cutting edge hardware. Now history repeats itself, and what makes it humorous is that many of these people are busy PRAISING GP2 and ICR2 for their performance, forgetting that those games ALSO alienated lower end machine owners when they came out! Of COURSE GP2 and ICR2-3D run better on a medium speed Pentium than CPR does! accept inferior performance"? 17 is not 49. Fine, rip CPR for being an inferior performer, but rip it compared to other comparable simulation software coming out right now, not 2 or 3 years ago. And certainly try to remember not to single out MS/TRI for this one. This has happened with every leading edge sim that's come out. There are always a large number of users stuck with medium to low hardware (and until a few weeks from now I'm firmly stuck in that bunch) and the hardware doesn't cut it. Humorously, John Wallace and I had it out some time ago over my suggestion that GP2's top priority should be 3D support. At the time P200's were still not cheap to upgrade to, and he was saying GP2 was just fine for him because he had a P200 and a fast 2D video board. We didn't get our 3D support, but now a machine that will run GP2 with all details on might only be so-so with CPR. This is the way it goes and has gone for years. Why act as if its something new and single out MS as if they are somehow unique in this regard? Perhaps just because its MS and its now in vogue to bash 'em. Randy Randy Magruder Staff Writer Digital Sportspage http://www.digitalsports.com/

Pentium II? CPR requires a P60, recommends a P166 (according to the MS CPR web page). How do you get Pentium II out of that? If that (minimum/recommended machine) is what the publisher says will work, we deserve the right to P&M if it doesn't. OK, I just installed the new Papyrus CART Racing Win95 (re-) release. With CPR I get high ***s (18-19) rounding T2 at low speed (640x480, good quality, hard. accel. w/smoothing, no other cars, most graphic options off, dashboard, clipping at 15, sound on, etc) with my P133/V1000. With Papyrus I get 25 with most graphics off (other settings as close to above as possible). With everything turned on, I get 21. Yes, CPR's 16-bit color looks better than Papyrus' 8-bit. (BTW, I was testing in 16-bit color mode, so maybe Papy might have had a few more FPS in it if I dropped my video to 8-bit, but I don't care enough to check. ;) OTOH, considering the Papyrus-Win95 version is 1 1/2 years old and was done without having the advantages of Microsoft to draw upon (if any one should know how to program for D3D...), "it's not bad for DirectX". Which brings us back where we started... :) And don't get me started on the DirectX install problem which I think was behind my control problems... ;) For me, I don't really care if its DirectX or a hardware-specific port. I'm looking for a good performing CART sim. An extremely small category with few product choices (2 last time I checked). When I compare them, I don't say "oh, its not a direct port, so I should accept inferior performance".* I compare the products based on their performance and, right now, CPR looks to have a FPS problem on my hardware, a problem serious enough to threaten gameplay (consider that all of these numbers I've quoted have been with *no* opponents, and CPR seems to take a bigger hit from additional cars than ICR2). The solution to that may be to keep playing ICR-3D, upgrading my PC (I had thought about a P133 -> P200MMX swap around the beginning of the year), or improving CPR. Improving CPR seems like the best option for all of us, assuming it can be done. :) * - BTW, I've had virtually no use for Papyrus' Win95 ICR2/CART port, even though it's "not bad for DirectX". If I was an artist, the PaintKit might be worthwhile. The DOS Rendition performance is just so much better. CPR is a better challenger (many more features), but it still has to compete with and outperform ICR-3D (or at least reach a minimal level of performance that makes that feature set worthwhile). 4-5 FPS loss is about right for me. The scheme of 'draw the track first, then the***pit' seems odd to this *** simmer (since we *never* drive outside of the***pit, right?). On Papyrus sims, the mostly-static***pit is a frame rate *bonus*, since only 1/3 - 1/2 of the screen must be updated. CPR's choice to draw the***pit over the track costs a fair chunk of FPS. (Although I'm not sure if CPR would gain as much, since the***pit isn't as static as the Papyrus sims -- with the vibration, head-panning, etc.) Now you're talking! We've seen the difference DMA can make in the DOS versions, so this is very encouraging. I believe that the new 2100's and 2200's are "bugged" while the old 1000's are just "experiencing slowdowns", like most "ancient" hardware. ;) Amen! 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?

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:48:39 -0800, "John Browne"

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Please take a look at some of the things other people have been posting. We >had a lot of machines in this config (P200, 3dfx) in our test group and >experienced excellent graphics performance. sometimes reinstalling will >speed up your framerate... >John Browne >MS CART Team

Again, excellent graphics performance is a subjective term which everyone has to form for their own use. I've looked at the frame rates that my PPro200 with 3dfx and 64MB gets with all details on, "Best" drawing setting, and draw-ahead at 31. The fps is around 17 sitting idle with no other cars in view. This drops down to around 15 when driving and one car is visible in front. I don't know what will happen when 10 or more other cars will be visible. Sure I can get 30+ fps by reducing the draw-ahead and using the "Better" setting or removing track-side objects and other detail, but this results in an inferior immersion and is less than what I would expect on this hardware. Also, as has been mentioned several times by others, the lack of anti-aliazing still leaves a poor image that makes it difficult to focus on the distant track. While it is likely that within a year, the level of hardware (cpu and 3d accelerators) will have risen to where it will run at 30+ fps with all detail on, it is also probably true that many people will simply not purchase this title (or be satisfied with the graphic performance) until a year or so. Dave. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reply, remove the _nospam from my email address

Here's a trick. In Win95, got to your graphics setup and turn the number of colors in the pallette down to 256. For example if you're currently running 32-bit color and then run CPR, it will suck big time. Drop it down to 256, then run the game ( turn the colors down first ). I have a P200, with a crappy 3d accelerator, diamond stealth 3d2000, an old S3Virge chip, and I get great frame rates. Just a suggestion ]