programmers took the time to "add" the eyecandy for us to have it
turned off.? So ... turn it on like it is supposed to be, and see if
you still get 25-30 fps <<
If I could be bothered I probably would, and I doubt it would be
playable - that was not the point of this thread. One thing I will
_guarantee_ you is that the frame-rate I get in SODA with all
eye-candy on will be much higher than anything I've seen in CPR with
all eye candy on. That's _without_ 3d acceleration, AND I can still
race against the CCs.
You tell me - why are you playing CPR? ;-)
Cheers!
John
defend Papyrus based products so staunchly but you criticize all
others at any given chance? Your criticism doesn't seem to be
impartial. Thanks, John <<
Around a week ago I spent some time composing you a long message,
detailing in very impartial terms exactly what was and was not wrong
with CPR. To save me some time, perhaps you can read through it and
tell me which aspects you would like me to further elaborate upon.
I'll be happy to do so.
My love is racing sims, not Papyrus, Geoff Crammond or anyone else.
Given that I appear to support Papyrus products more than any other,
it doesn't take an enormous leap of logic to come to the conclusion
that Papyrus make better products than anyone else. Not only that, but
they deliver on what they promise or they don't promise it at all. It
may well be that MS/TRI deliver on everything that's on the CPR box,
but right now it seems like a Fantasia scenario with the hype machine.
FYI the message read....
----------------------
Hi John,
I hope my comments on CPR aren't seen as overly negative or cynical,
as there is much to like about the game. That said, there are
undeniably problems, and problems that many people are glossing over
in the newsgroup. Of the people on r.a.s. or Compuserve whose opinions
I respect, not one of them has hailed CPR as a great product. Some
hate it, some really like it, but all of them have acknowledge some
areas which really need work.
The physics have some real problems. Don't take that only from me, I
have a fair bit of real-life racing experience but never to the level
of Indycars. Take that from folk like <deleted for posting to r.a.s.>.
Then there are problems with frame-rate - I can get a playable
frame-rate only by turning off all detail and with no CCs on-screen.
This needs fixed, since as you will know well a fast and smooth
frame-rate is mandatory for good lap-times. There are problems with
the AI - in current form they are _horrible_ and honestly I am
staggered that they were released in current form. There are many
other smaller gripes - the controls are either too sensitive or not
sensitive enough, it's incredibly difficult to get them right,
worrying behaviour at low speeds, etc etc
My hope is that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", and that by
highlighting these issues they will be attended to. The frame-rate
problem with AI for example is similar to what was seen in GLQuake
when other players appeared on-screen. This problem was tracked down
and shot, and frame-rates are now fine. Make no mistake, another
player in the sim market is great, and when I first drove CPR I
really, really wanted to like it, trying it again and again trying to
convince myself that it was good. If these issues are attended to then
it may yet be a great game, or if not CPR then CPR2. My worry is that
CPR is intended as a taster for on-line nternet racing as Papyrus have
done with NROS, and that it was intended from the outset to be a
"toned down Indycar", de-tuned physics making it easier to drive and
AI unessential since you're racing on-line (note MS' comments
about "just play on the Zone" when asked about poor AI).
Hey, I've got an open mind, and I'm still hoping that th patch will
cure all my ills and make CPR into the game I was hoping for.
Cheers!
John
PS - It is a good name isn't it :-)
------------------
As you can see, I _want_ CPR to be a great game, and was pretty gutted
when it wasn't. From what I have seen there is very little (if any)
impartiality among CPR's detractors, all of whom have in common that
they really want a good game. What I find astonishing is the core of
people who insist on praising CPR to the skies, blind to what is so
obviously wrong with it. "Blinded by what?" I am compelled to ask.
Cheers!
John
> As you can see, I _want_ CPR to be a great game, and was pretty gutted
> when it wasn't. From what I have seen there is very little (if any)
> impartiality among CPR's detractors, all of whom have in common that
> they really want a good game. What I find astonishing is the core of
> people who insist on praising CPR to the skies, blind to what is so
> obviously wrong with it. "Blinded by what?" I am compelled to ask.
Good summary at the end, John. I think that's the bottom line..all we
want is a good game. What makes a good game is up for a *LOT* of
interpretation. Right now CPR is very close to being a good game, but
it needs a little help to get there.
--
Neil Yeatman
Ajax, Ontario, CANADA
Quoted text (18 lines)
> >>Yes, but your 25-30 fps is without anything turned on -- I doubt the > programmers took the time to "add" the eyecandy for us to have it > turned off. So ... turn it on like it is supposed to be, and see if > you still get 25-30 fps << > If I could be bothered I probably would, and I doubt it would be > playable - that was not the point of this thread. One thing I will > _guarantee_ you is that the frame-rate I get in SODA with all > eye-candy on will be much higher than anything I've seen in CPR with > all eye candy on. That's _without_ 3d acceleration, AND I can still > race against the CCs. > >> In other words, if the good stuff ain't on, what's the point... << > You tell me - why are you playing CPR? ;-) > Cheers! > JohnQuoted text (11 lines)
> > As you can see, I _want_ CPR to be a great game, and was pretty gutted > > when it wasn't. From what I have seen there is very little (if any) > > impartiality among CPR's detractors, all of whom have in common that > > they really want a good game. What I find astonishing is the core of > > people who insist on praising CPR to the skies, blind to what is so > > obviously wrong with it. "Blinded by what?" I am compelled to ask. > Good summary at the end, John. I think that's the bottom line..all we > want is a good game. What makes a good game is up for a *LOT* of > interpretation. Right now CPR is very close to being a good game, but > it needs a little help to get there.I'd be very careful saying that around here - folks are reeeeeeal
touchy around these parts....
